Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SHARD BRIDGE BILL

Lords amendments agreed to.

GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) (No. 5) BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

CSCE

Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made in developing a conciliation mechanism within the conference on security and co-operation in Europe.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): The CSCE experts' meeting on the peaceful settlement of disputes, held earlier this year in Valletta, agreed a report containing provisions for the establishment of a dispute settlement mechanism—a panel of indepedent experts—within the CSCE process. A copy of the report has been placed in the Library of the House. The dispute settlement mechanism would offer advice and comment to assist states in resolving disputes. The Valletta report draws extensively on British ideas put forward last year for a CSCE conciliation facility. We expect the June meeting of CSCE Foreign Ministers to endorse the Valletta report and to set up the mechanism.

Mr. Thompson: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Does not it demonstrate the good progress that has been made in the conference since the Paris summit and show the transformed political atmosphere in Europe? Can these procedures be used to help the suffering people in the Baltic states?

Mr. Hogg: I entirely agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's remarks. As to the second, I do not think that this mechanism can he used to deal with the problems of the Baltic states, for two reasons. First, they are designed to address the problems of inter-state disputes and, secondly, there are exclusions in the procedures that would enable one party to a dispute to exclude issues relating to sovereignty. I agree, however, that the principles reflected in the 10 propositions annexed to the mechanism should

guide discussions in the Baltic republics, and we want urgent discussions between the Soviet Government and the Governments of the three republics.

Mr. Winnick: Does not progress depend to a large extent on the continuation of the democratic reforms taking place in the Soviet Union? Should not we pay tribute to the immense achievements that Mr. Gorbachev has brought about in the Soviet Union, transforming a totalitarian dictatorship into a near democracy? Is the Minister aware of the concern felt by many in Europe about some of the elements now appearing in Russia, which remind us of Tsarist tyranny? Such people should he warned that we do not want them to take power.

Mr. Hogg: I certainly agree that President Gorbachev has contributed substantially to the liberalisation of life in eastern Europe—one has only to look at the present position of the states that were satellites but five years ago to see the truth of that. But we also need to understand that there is still a long way to go before a pluralistic democratic state emerges in the Soviet Union. Our support is for the process of reform rather than for any particular individual.

Mass Destruction Weapons

Mr. Viggers: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will take steps to prevent the further proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Yes, Sir. We are working to strengthen existing regimes of restriction and control. We have already reinforced and widened the scope of our export controls on chemical weapons precursors. We are considering urgently how to improve the regimes to prevent the export of technology and materials for biological weapons. We are also working for further accessions to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, to strengthen the international safeguards run by the International Atomic Energy Authority, to secure a commitment to the early negotiation of a chemical weapons convention and the strengthening of the biological weapons convention at its review conference in September, and to strengthen the missile technology control regime.

Mr. Viggers: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comprehensive reply. Does he agree that the powers of the International Atomic Energy Agency are clearly insufficient, given that Iraq was able to prove compliance with the rules of the IAEA as recently as November 1990? Does he agree also that the time is right for a significant new initiative in limiting the spread of weapons of mass destruction that will involve further inspection and verification powers for the United Nations, perhaps based on Security Council resolution 687, and that the United Kingdom is well placed to take that initiative?

Mr. Hurd: Yes, my hon. Friend makes a general point and directs it specifically to Iraq. The resolution that he mentioned provides for the elimination of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. We are actively supporting the United Nation's secretariat's work in setting up a special commission to carry through the resolution. I hope that it will be in action before too long.

Mr. Cartwright: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that a serious aspect of the problem is the growing number of nations that have access to sophisticated delivery systems? As there is a limited number of suppliers of systems such as those for ballistic missiles, is it possible to give serious attention to limiting the availability of the delivery systems?

Mr. Hurd: Yes. That is part of the purpose of the missile technology control regime, which I mentioned. We must try to broaden that so that it includes most of the main suppliers, including the Soviet Union.

Mr. Robertson: In spite of that, did not we learn from the Gulf conflict the necessity of keeping nuclear technology out of the hands of the likes of Saddam Hussein? Surely, therefore, the first and essential step is to convert the partial test ban treaty into a comprehensive ban on all nuclear tests. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that after the sad and avoidable collapse of the review conference in January, the prospect of keeping in existence even the partial test ban treaty will die if the United States and Britain go ahead with continued nuclear tests?

Mr. Hurd: I usually follow the hon. Gentleman's logic, but I do not on this occasion. I think that the step of which he spoke is some way down the road. The first and essential step, to use his phrase, is to ensure that Iraq's potential to employ weapons of mass destruction is destroyed, and that that destruction is verified. We can then proceed to strengthen the regime in the way that I have mentioned.

CSCE

Mr. Trimble: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he is taking to give individuals and non-governmental bodies an opportunity to participate in the CSCE process as extended by the charter of Paris.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: We consistently uphold the importance of openness within the conference on security and co-operation in Europe process. We periodically hold consultations with individuals and non-governmental organisations. We include non-governmental representatives in United Kingdom delegations to some CSCE meetings. We also seek to ensure that individuals and NGOs have as free access as possible to CSCE meetings.

Mr. Trimble: The Minister will be aware that the charter of Paris, which was signed in November, specifically provided for widening the process to enable individuals and NGOs to contribute. We are especially anxious to have a means of contributing to the process, for several reasons. First, we would wish to ensure that the security provisions of the CSCE could be applied to the breach of the Helsinki agreement by the Irish Republic. For some reason, that is an issue that the Foreign Office seems reluctant to raise. Secondly, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the charter extended the CSCE to include cultural conflicts and the extension of democratic rights. Is the Minister aware that we believe that on both fronts we could make a significant contribution, if only to draw attention to the almost complete absence of

democracy in part of the United Kingdom? That is an issue with which the Foreign Secretary, because of his record, might feel inhibited in dealing.

Mr. Hogg: We, too, wish to encourage openness in the process of the CSCE. I know that the hon. Gentleman is especially concerned about articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution. I do not think that those issues are best raised within the context of the CSCE, if only because that is likely to entrench the publicly declared attitudes of the Republic. The hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that article 1, I think, of the Anglo-Irish Agreement makes it plain that the Republic accepts the status of the Province unless the majority of the people in the Province wish otherwise.

Mr. Wilkinson: On the question of openness and mutual understanding within the CSCE, would not east-west relations be much enhanced if the Soviet Union were to reconsider its circumvention of the arms control process by, instead of disbanding three divisions on the central front, assigning them to its navy? Have the Government any comment to make on that?

Mr. Hogg: I agree with my hon. Friend that the policy of subordinating the three divisions to naval command calls into question the Soviet Union's commitment to the principles of the treaty on conventional weapons in Europe. Before we ratify that treaty, we must explore how we can bring the spirit of the treaty back into operation. We want to ensure that the Soviet position broadly accords, in every material respect, with the letter and the spirit of the agreement.

Dr. Kim Howells: Does the Minister agree that the formal inter-state arrangements enshrined in the charter do not adequately take account of the expense and the seriousness of disputes within states? I refer especially to the new nationalisms of central and eastern Europe and the potentially disastrous consequences of the inter-ethnic conflict that could arise.

Mr. Hogg: I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety. However, had we tried to enshrine within the agreement a CSCE mechanism under which those internal disputes could be dealt with, it is probable that no agreement would have been made. The hon. Gentleman knows that a list of principles is attached to the CSCE disputes settlement mechanism, and they are applicable to internal disputes. They are largely procedural in character, but they can be invoked for internal disputes. The general principles that underpin the CSCE agreement are those that contracting states should have in mind when dealing with their internal negotiations.

Nigeria

Mr. Speller: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what ways Her Majesty's Government will be assisting Nigeria in the run-up to the general election in that country.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones): Our substantial aid programme to Nigeria—more than £32 million in 1990–91—will continue. It includes help with public administration reform and police training and legal


drafting, all with the aim of fostering good government and helping to establish structures and systems that will survive the transition to civilian rule.

Mr. Speller: Will my hon. Friend, on behalf of the Government, welcome the impending return of a democratically elected Government to Nigeria? Does he accept that Britain has had both a happy and a long-standing relationship with that country? That includes the fact that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister worked there. Will he do everything possible to assist Nigeria as it comes back into the family of democracies?

Mr. Garel-Jones: The whole thrust of the Government's aid programme in Nigeria is to ensure support for the transition to, and the return of, democracy. Both my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook)—who is in his place—are, like my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, old Nigerian hands. They and Opposition Members represent the long-standing friendship between Britain and Nigeria.

Ms. Abbott: Would not one way to help Nigeria be to deal with the debt question? The Minister is aware that the Trinidad terms do nothing for middle-income debtors such as Nigeria. Just as Poland has required up to 80 per cent. debt reduction to get on its feet, will not countries such as Nigeria be able to help themselves only if there is serious debt reduction, in both the commercial and the financial sectors?

Mr. Garel-Jones: The hon. Lady makes a good point. We recognise that Nigeria is now a poor country, with a per capita income of below $300 and a very heavy debt burden. It does riot formally meet the criteria for reduction schemes available for the poorest countries in the Paris club, but we have argued that, because of its low per capita income, it deserves special treatment.

Mr. Stanbrook: Is my hon. Friend aware that Nigeria is a huge country with tremendous economic and political problems, but with a sensible and moderate Government, who deserve every encouragement as they endeavour further to pursue the path of parliamentary democracy?

Mr. Garel Jones: Indeed, it is a huge country of which every corner is well known to my hon. Friend. We are supporting the efforts of the present Nigerian Government to return to civilian rule.

The Gulf

Mr. Nellist: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about recent developments in the Gulf.

Mr. Hurd: Following Iraq's formal acceptance of United Nations Security Council resolution 687, a formal ceasefire is in place in the Gulf. The resolution re-affirmed the Iraq-Kuwait border of 1963, established a compensation fund and provided for the destruction of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons and long-range missile systems. Sanctions against the import of Iraqi products will be lifted only once Iraq has completed the steps necessary for the destruction of those weapons and weapons systems and once the Security Council has approved arrangements for the compensation fund. Other trade and financial sanctions against Iraq are subject to

regular review by the council. The arms embargo will remain in force indefinitely. So long as Saddam Hussein remains in power, Iraq cannot hope to return to a normal relationship with the international community.

Mr. Nellist: What assessment have the Government made of the Amnesty International report on torture in Kuwait, which says that electric shocks, knives, whips, sulphuric acid, sexual assault and threats of execution have been used by Kuwaitis on Palestinians and others? Where is the democracy and respect for human rights that the Secretary of State told the House were at the base of the reason for the Gulf war? Are the Government more concerned with Britain's share of restoration projects, including restoration of gold taps in the Emir's palace?

Mr. Hurd: In pursuit of his argument, the hon. Gentleman should not misrepresent what I said. We went to war to reverse the Iraqi aggression against Kuwait and to restore the legitimate Government. Those were the Security Council's words, that is what we set out to do, and that is what we did.
We take the Amnesty International report seriously, because it has been clear to us, and was made clear by us to Kuwaiti Ministers before the liberation, that this should be a new and hopeful chapter in the history of Kuwait. After what the Kuwaitis went through, it is understandable that there should be retaliation and disorder for a time. However, when I go to Kuwait in the next few days, I shall reinforce the message that I gave when the Government were in exile.

Mr. Budgen: On reflection, will my right hon. Friend concede that he may have been unwise last Wednesday when he said that the Government supported the Kurdish leaders' aims and objectives of autonomy within Iraq? Is not it vital to make a distinction between humanitarian aid and becoming involved in Iraq's internal politics?

Mr. Hurd: We have no desire to dictate or arrange either the map of Iraq or its constitution. The purpose of the presence of our troops in northern Iraq is, as my hon. Friend said, purely humanitarian. That does not prevent us from saying, when asked about our views, that we believe that the Kurdish people should have autonomy within the boundaries of Iraq.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: What steps is the Secretary of State's Department taking to elicit exactly what is meant by Saddam Hussein's offer of an autonomous region for the Kurdish population? Has the Secretary of State made representations to the United Nations to ensure that the Kurds are represented at the middle east peace conference?

Mr. Hurd: I have not done that, but my hon. Friend the Minister of State has been in touch again this week with Kurdish leaders in London. I have no precise information, but I understand that some of them are holding discussions with the Iraqis. The Kurdish leaders know better than anyone else what Saddam Hussein is capable of.

EC Foreign Policy

Mr. Wilshire: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the implications of the experience gained during the Gulf crisis for the European Community's development of a common foreign policy.

Mr. Hurd: The Twelve acted together in condemning Iraqi aggression and in applying sanctions. They are not a defence community and did not seek to agree on military contributions to the allied effort in the Gulf. It is in Britain's interests to seek the greatest possible agreement within the Twelve on foreign policy matters and to act jointly when such agreement has been reached.

Mr. Wilshire: Does my right hon. Friend agree that foreign policy and defence policy must be in harmony for progress to be made? Does he also agree that the record of joint action, as distinct from rhetoric, both in the Gulf and in relation to the problems with the Kurds, makes unhappy reading? If that is so, does he agree that it is possible to be a good European by supporting the economic aspects of the EC, while seriously questioning the so-called advantages of a joint defence and foreign policy?

Mr. Hurd: The defence policy for members of the Atlantic alliance should rest on that alliance. I do not agree with my hon. Friend's other point. In the Gulf, both during and before the war, the record of the Twelve was certainly patchy, as I have said before. With regard to the present position of the Kurds, not only is the Commission playing a substantial part in the relief effort, but we are working closely on the spot with our partners, particularly the Germans, French and Dutch.

Ms. Short: Will the Foreign Secretary raise with all the European Foreign Ministers the present position in Iraq, the continuing uprising for democracy and, in my view, the disgraceful attitude of the west in failing to support that objective—[Interruption.] Please, Mr. Speaker, will you make Conservative Members behave themselves?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Lady can look after herself—but hon. Members should, please, behave themselves.

Ms. Short: Will the Foreign Secretary openly say that Britain gives its support to the uprising for democracy, and invites other European countries to do so, is willing to meet the Iraqi opposition and will give humanitarian and political support to them, or are we happier to allow Saddam Hussein's regime to continue?

Mr. Hurd: Of course we are not happier to do that. We have been in touch with Kurdish leaders, as I have said, and other opposition leaders as we are with a wide range of leaders of all opinions in many countries. As I have said, and as we have constantly said in the House, it was not the purpose of military action or of the presence of troops in Iraq—either during the war or now—to alter Iraq's boundaries or dictate its constitution.

Mr. Burt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the lessons of the Gulf conflict has been the need for European politicians to work more closely together? To

that extent, does he welcome the closer relationship that now exists between Conservative Members of the European Parliament and their colleagues in Strasbourg?

Mr. Hurd: Yes, I do welcome that—it is a step forward. I am clear, as regards not only the middle east, but all our dealings with, for example, the Soviet Union, that it is a substantial strength to this country if we can reach agreement with our partners on such matters and act on them. If we cannot reach agreement, we should not be bound by a majority voting on such matters. If we can reach agreement, it makes sense to do so and to act jointly.

Mr. Shore: I welcome the first part of the Foreign Secretary's reply, but put it to him, to place it clearly on the record, that the divisions in the European Community on how to react to the Gulf crisis were, to put it mildly, very worrying indeed, and if we had then been subjected to majority voting in Europe, no effective action would have been taken by this country or others in Europe. Therefore, in the light of the current discussions on a treaty for political union, will the Foreign Secretary make it plain that he will resolutely oppose the extension of majority voting to any aspect of foreign policy, as distinct from seeking consensus, which is entirely sensible, and co-operation with our European friends?

Mr. Hurd: That is indeed our objective, but I hope that neither the right hon. Gentleman nor any other hon. Member will underrate the advantage to this country of seeking agreement and joint action within the Community. I find that that happens over and over again, although not always. It did not happen all the time in the Gulf, but when it does happen, it is well worth getting.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Will my right hon. Friend stick to his guns and continue along the path down which he is already advancing, of ever-closer co-operation on achieving a more closely co-ordinated foreign policy?

Mr. Hurd: Yes. My hon. Friend chose his words carefully and I shall try to do the same. I agree with what the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said: if we had had majority voting at some of the discussions which I attended during the Gulf crisis, the contributions of Europe, and of ourselves and the French in particular perhaps, might well have been less than they were.

Mr. Foulkes: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that one perfect area in which to seek agreement and to execute joint action would be Antarctica? Is it not therefore a matter of great regret that Britain is now the only European country—[Interruption.] If hon. Members read the question carefully, they would see that it refers to lessons learned from the Gulf for joint European co-operation. Is it not therefore a matter of great regret that Britain is now the only European country advocating mineral exploitation?
Will the Foreign Secretary and his Minister of State stop pretending that we are trying to find consensus when we are leading the minority opposing a consensus? Will the Foreign Secretary send his Minister of State to the Madrid conference now—I am sure that he would like to go—following in the footsteps of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), to take over the delegation and join the rest of Europe in opposing any mining in Antarctica for an indefinite period?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Member has got lost, not for the first time. He strains our credulity when he describes the proposal for a moratorium which we put forward as advocating mineral exploitation. It is nothing of the kind.

British Hostages (Lebanon)

Mr. Hind: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the measures he is taking to free the British hostages held in the Lebanon.

Mr. Summerson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made in efforts to secure the release of British hostages in the Lebanon.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: We continue to make every effort in our contacts with the Iranian authorities, who we believe to have a decisive influence, to secure the release of the hostages. We have also contacted other countries, and the European Community troika, to reinforce the point in their own dealing with Iran.
Most recently, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development raised the matter with the Iranian Foreign Minister on 20 April.

Mr. Hind: My hon. and learned Friend will no doubt agree that the detention of Terry Waite and John McCarthy is inhuman and morally unjustified, and should be terminated as soon as possible. Is he satisfied from his contacts with the Syrians and the Iranians, who have the key to their release, that the two men are still alive? How recently has information about that been made known to him?

Mr. Hogg: As my hon. Friend knows, there are three hostages—John McCarthy, Terry Waite and Jackie Mann. We are deeply concerned about their plight. We believe that the Iranian Government have a decisive influence over their future. We have made it plain to that Government that we very much want to see our relations with Iran greatly improved. They will improve greatly once the hostages are delivered up.
As to Syria, I was there last month and I raised the question of the hostages on every possible occasion, and with President Assad. We do not believe that the Syrian Government have a decisive influence over the fate of the hostages, but, of course, the Syrian Government have considerable influence within Lebanon and over Iran. The Syrian Government have assured Her Majesty's Government that they are using every opportunity to impress on Iran the need to release the hostages. I believe that the Syrian Government are doing that.

Mr. Summerson: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the people of Lebanon should have the right to self-determination? Does he further agree that, if they had their own sovereign state within a democratic framework, not only would the hostages be released but the taking of hostages in future for political purposes would never happen?

Mr. Hogg: I do indeed think that the people of Lebanon have the right to self-determination. Apart from other things, that means that there should be no foreign troops in Lebanon, and that is a policy objective for which we must strive. Clearly, the taking and keeping of hostages

is a dreadful business, and we must use every opportunity—and we are doing so—to procure the release of all hostages, especially the three to whom we have already made reference.

Sir David Steel: Following the welcome and long overdue release of Mr. Roger Cooper by the Iranian authorities, is the ball not somewhat in our court? Should not we contemplate the appointment of full ambassadors in London and Teheran, and should not we be seen to be active in trying to secure the release of Sheikh Obeid from Israel, where he was abducted from the Lebanon?

Mr. Hogg: I think that the taking of Sheikh Obeid, or anyone else of that kind, is an extremely reprehensible act, and it is extremely important for him to be released with all possible speed. As regards ambassadors, as I have already said, it is our intention to improve our relations with Iran as soon as the hostages are released. I think that ambassadors will be exchanged shortly after the hostages are released, but I do not see them being exchanged until that time.

Mr. Madden: While improving diplomatic relations between the British Government and Iran and Syria are most welcome, and clearly hold part of the key to the release of British hostages in the Lebanon, does the hon. and learned Gentleman place more importance on the arguments by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), speaking on behalf of the Liberal Democratic party, about the third side of the triangle lying in Israel? Will he put more pressure on Israel to release not only Sheikh Obeid but the large number of Arabs held prisoner or hostage by the Israelis, because many of us believe that that could be the decisive factor in obtaining the urgent release of British hostages in the Lebanon?

Mr. Hogg: I certainly should like the Government of Israel to release the people to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred. However, there are two dangers in the argument that he deploys. First, the taking of hostages is a dreadfully wrong act, and it is important not to link one thing with the other. Secondly, and perhaps more materially, our influence over the Government of Israel is limited in that respect. Therefore, if one impliedly accepts a linkage between the two and then fails to deliver what the hon. Gentleman is arguing for with the Government of Israel, it could make prospects more, rather than less, difficult for the three hostages to whom I have already referred.

Mr. Adley: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that, in three recent visits to the Lebanon, I have received every possible assistance from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, both before, during and after my visit. I cannot recall a specific request that I have made to the Government to which they have not acceded. Having said that, may I reiterate to my hon. and learned Friend the last two questions from the other side of the House? Will he accept it from me that while the Iranians, who do not hold hostages, are doing what they can to help with the release of our people, the Israelis, who do hold hostages, are seemingly doing nothing whatsoever to give assistance?

Mr. Latham: Israel has not got any hostages—Obeid is a terrorist.

Mr. Adley: It is no use my hon. Friend saying that Israel has no hostages. We all know about Sheikh Obeid.

Mr. Latham: They are terrorists.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Could the hon. Gentleman ask a question please?

Mr. Adley: Will my hon. and learned Friend ensure that, as regards relations, we mete out the same treatment on equal terms, to both the Iranians and the Israelis, as we are asking both of them to help with this problem?

Mr. Hogg: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind observations on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, although it put me on the qui vive when I heard him saying it. I welcome his visits, and I am grateful to him for the persistence and the courage that he has shown. As far as Israel is concerned, I think that I have already responded to that issue and I do not think that I have anything to add. As regards Iran, I do not wholly agree with the premise of my hon. Friend's question, because I believe that Iran has a decisive influence and say over the fate of the hostages.

Mr. Kaufman: Without in any way detracting from the hon. and learned Gentleman's efforts on the matter, and without any discourtesy to him, might I ask whether it would not have been appropriate, on the fifth anniversary of the incarceration of John McCarthy, if the Secretary of State had dealt with this question in order to emphasise the importance attached to it at the top of government? I am sure that, when he was in Damascus, the hon. and learned Gentleman was told what I was told when I went there for the same purpose—that the hostage takers pay great attention to the level at which such matters are treated, and that they drew attention to the fact that President Bush and Mr. James Baker had written personally, regularly and consistently about them to President Assad.
Mr. McCarthy has now been incarcerated for five years; Mr. Waite is also there and we have no news of whether Mr. Mann is even alive. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman assure the House that the Government will take every opportunity at the highest level to press the issue? Other countries have had hostages released and although there are no facile comparisons, the British people are determined that our hostages should also be released.

Mr. Hogg: We believe that Jackie Mann is still alive. We cannot be certain, but we believe so. There is no item on the agenda between the Government and Iran which is more important than this issue. It is our paramount consideration and guides all our dealings with Iran. As to the importance that my right hon. Friends attach to the release of hostages, the Prime Minister has sent a message to President Rafsanjani. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has spoken to Foreign Secretary Velayati about this issue, and I raised it on two occasions with the Iranian chargé, and also in Syria last month. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development also raised the matter in Tehrain last week and the European troika has been enlisted, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. We have taken every opportunity—through our friends and allies and by ourselves—to impress on the Iranian Government the fundamental importance of getting our hostages out. Nothing is more important in our relations with Iran.

Iraq

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Britain's relations with Iraq.

Mr. Hurd: There can be no question of establishing normal relations with Iraq in present circumstances.

Mr. Arnold: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the presence in Zakho in northern Iraq of hundreds of Ba'athist armed police and of reports now coming out of intimidation and looting by them. Bearing in mind the potential for an armed clash between them and the Royal Marines now in the area and also bearing in mind the disincentive that they provide to the Kurdish civilians to come down from the hillsides and into care in the Zakho area, what steps are being taken with the Iraqi Government to secure the immediate withdrawal of those armed units?

Mr. Hurd: I share my hon. Friend's anxiety. We are in close touch with our American and French allies to decide the best way of dealing with the matter.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Can I ask a critical question about the Kurds? In the event of the discussion that is currently taking place in Baghdad between Mr. Talabani and the Iraqi Government leading to agreement, will the Foreign Secretary and the Government go to the United Nations to seek a resolution to underpin that agreement in as far as it provides an international guarantee? Is not that the only way in which the Kurdish population in Kurdistan can be reassured that whatever measures are necessary will be taken to ensure their future security? Is not that the only way to proceed?

Mr. Hurd: I do not believe that the Kurds would feel particularly safe under the procedure which the hon. Gentleman sketches. They need, and will seek in any discussions in Baghdad or elsewhere with the Iraqis, something more local. They will need some clear assurance that, if they and their women and children return to their towns and villages, they will be secure, then, as the hon. Gentleman says, that they will enjoy autonomy. The Kurds need local assurance, and our humanitarian effort in the north is, of course, designed to help provide some of them with that.

Mr. Bellingham: The Foreign Secretary will be aware that, during the Gulf war, the Iraqis committed some serious war crimes, including crimes against our own air crews based in west Norfolk. What is the up-to-date position on bringing the perpetrators of those crimes to justice?

Mr. Hurd: We have emphasised throughout that anyone from the top down in Iraq who is guilty of committing these offences will be held responsible for them. Of course, one must first bring them under jurisdiction. The Kuwaitis are doing that, and the Saudis are doing it in some respects. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has arranged for the collection of any evidence. If my hon. Friend has evidence that he would like to make available, I hope that he will do so.

South Africa

Mr. Martlew: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure the implementation of the United Nations declaration on South Africa adopted in December 1989.

Mr. Garel-Jones: We continue to encourage all sides in South Africa to maintain progress towards the aims set out in the United Nations declaration—the end of apartheid and the adoption of a non-racial, democratic constitution arrived at by peaceful means through negotiation.

Mr. Martlew: Surely the Minister agrees that it would not be right to remove sanctions at this time, because apartheid has not been done away with? Apartheid is not something which can be partially done away with. It must be put in the dustbin of history. We cannot take away sanctions, because there are still 1,300 political prisoners in South Africa and there are serious doubts that the land reforms proposed by the South African Government will take place. There is news this week that those land reforms will be watered down. I should be grateful for the Minister's comment on that point.

Mr. Garel-Jones: I am afraid that I do not entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Britain, in conjunction with our partners in the Europe Economic Community, is attempting to recognise that President de Klerk has made substantial strides towards the type of society that all hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to see. That is the policy in both the United Kingdom and the wider community.
I have seen an early-day motion on political prisoners, to which the hon. Gentleman and several of his hon. Friends have subscribed. Certainly, that is also a serious matter. We welcome the release of 500 political prisoners this year, and we hope that that process will continue.

Sir Peter Blaker: Is my hon. Friend aware that there will be a wide welcome for the fact that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will visit South Africa soon, for the statesmanlike remarks of President de Klerk during his visit to Britain, and for the arrival of Mr. Nelson Mandela in Britain this morning? Does he agree that the view that the progressive dismantling of sanctions is the best way of encouraging consolidated, desirable change in South Africa is ever more widely accepted throughout the world, except, it appears, by some of the dinosaurs on the Opposition Benches?

Mr. Garel-Jones: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The visit of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to South Africa this summer is a welcome step. It is a recognition by Her Majesty's Government of the encouraging progress that we have seen in South Africa. As my hon. Friend will be aware, Mr. Nelson Mandela will meet my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister this afternoon. I agree with my hon. Friend: some Opposition Members had the opportunity to meet President de Klerk during his visit to London. [Interruption.] I am afraid that they did. Whether that will cause them trouble in their own party, I am not aware. It is encouraging that some Opposition Members met President de Klerk. I hope that they were impressed, as many of my hon. Friends were, by what President de Klerk had to say about progress in South Africa.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the Minister aware that we expect from him something much better than parrot-fashion repetition of what he is told by President de Klerk? Is it not the case that the political prisoners have not been released; that the exiles have not returned home; that, since the release of Nelson Mandela, no progress has been made towards real negotiation about the transfer of power; and that the black majority in South Africa still have no vote? President de Klerk declined to meet the all-party South Africa group and when, yesterday, he was asked about the political prisoners, he could not answer but responded with the memorable "Majorian" phrase, "Wait and see." Does not the Minister realise that the people of South Africa cannot wait any longer? The peace progress is in great danger, and nothing that the Government are doing is helping to put pressure on de Klerk to deliver the goods.

Mr. Garel-Jones: The hon. Member's interest in and commitment to an integrated South Africa is well known, and I respect it. However, he is not prepared to recognise the very encouraging steps that have been taken by President de Klerk. It is untrue to say simply that political prisoners have not been released. In fact, 500 have been released in the past year. In addition, more than 1,000 political exiles have returned to South Africa. Unless the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends are prepared to recognise the real progress that has been made in South Africa, they will not make the contribution to the future of that country that I am sure they would wish to make.

Sir Ian Lloyd: May I endorse warmly the welcome that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) has just given to the news that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is to visit South Africa and that, possibly, there will be a visit shortly after that by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister? May I remind both of my right hon. Friends that, in 1962 or 1963, the then right hon. Harold Macmillan made a very dramatic speech before both Houses of the South African Parliament, in which he referred to "the wind of change"? I suggest that, if the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister is asked to make a similar speech, they will recall the hurricane of change that has blown through that continent and elsewhere in the world. The world as a whole is pretty sick of hurricanes, so perhaps such a speech would be more appropriately referred to as "the change of wind" speech.

Mr. Garel-Jones: My right hon. Friend's visit to South Africa will be part of Her Majesty's Government's efforts to continue the process of changing it into a non-racial, democratic country. I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would like to visit South Africa when the time is right. No doubt he will be encouraged by the cautious welcome that the Leader of the Opposition has given to that proposition.

Mr. Anderson: Do not the Government recognise the potential danger to British interests of our being still seen in the international community, including the European Community, the Commonwealth and the United Nations, as enthusiastically in favour of the premature lifting of sanctions? Are the Government prepared to listen not only to President de Klerk but to the representatives of the majority? Will they recognise that, in addition to the matters that have been referred to by my hon. Friend the


Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), the Internal Security Act, particularly section 29 on preventive detention without trial, is still in force? Until that Act is scrapped, all the exiles are back home, and all the political prisoners have been released, there cannot be a climate for negotiations with a view to bringing South Africa truly back into the international community.

Mr. Garel-Jones: I am sorry, but I am afraid that I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. For example, the recent decision of the Foreign Affairs Council of the European Community to lift sanctions against South Africa was not pressed by Britain, but was taken unanimously. As the British Minister attending that meeting, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I received substantial and solid support both from Mr. Genscher and from Mr. de Michelis. I do not think that Her Majesty's Government would for one minute apologise for attempting to lead the European Community and the rest of the world in recognising the very important changes than have been taking place, courageously led at the moment by President de Klerk.

Mr. John Carlisle: Will my right hon. Friends take the opportunity to get through to Mr. Mandela and to the African National Congress the message that the world is growing increasingly impatient with their persistent policies of sanctions and non-co-operation in the time warp in which they seem to be stuck? Will my hon. Friend take every encouragement from what President de Klerk has been saying this week, that legislative apartheid will be abolished in June and that the British Government's policy of relaxing and indeed abandoning sanctions will help that process far more than the ANC's policy of trying to wreck everything?

Mr. Garel Jones: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that the consistent policy that the British Government have pursued has played an important part in the process of reform to which he referred. Mr. Mandela is a force for moderation, and his meeting with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister this afternoon will undoubtedly be an opportunity for my right hon. Friend to make some of the points to which my hon. Friend has just referred.

Iraq

Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had concerning the Kurdish population of Iraq.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: My right hon. Friend has had many intensive discussions with his American, European Community and other colleagues, the United Nations Secretary-General and relief agencies. The United States Secretary of State and European Community Foreign Ministers discussed the plight of the Kurds when they met on 17 April in Luxembourg.
Yesterday, I had meetings in Geneva with Prince Salruddin, Mr. Stafford of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, and the International Committee of the Red Cross, when we discussed the plight of the Kurds. I have also had three meetings with representatives of Iraqi opposition groups, including Kurds, and one of those delegations met my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Mrs. Fyfe: I thank the Minister for that reply. Did he discuss with the Iraqi opposition their calls for a provisional coalition Government? Does he agree with their views that that would help overthrow Saddam Hussein more permanently? Finally, will he comment on the desperate need to get material aid moving in Britain as so much of it is being stored in warehouses? People have been gathering material together, but cannot get it shipped out to Iraq because of organisational problems in this country. Will he support more material and organisational aid to the Iraqi opposition?

Mr. Hogg: United Kingdom support for delivery and dispatch of aid is very considerable. The hon. Lady will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development said on that subject on Monday. The Kurdish opposition groups did not talk to me about a provisional Government. They think in terms of the Iraqi army overthrowing Saddam Hussein. They talk about their aspirations, which we strongly support, for a democratic pluralistic society, ensuring civil rights by constitutional means. They also support the concept of an autonomous Kurdish region within the existing frontiers of Iraq.

Jordan

Sir Trevor Skeet: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last visited Jordan.

Mr. Hurd: I last visited Jordan in January. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State went there last month for useful discussions with King Hussein. I hope to visit Jordan again before long.

Sir Trevor Skeet: Since the Jordanians are likely to suffer a loss of$3·6 billion largely due to export reductions, transient payments and lack of remittances from the Gulf, and since it is important to maintain stability in Jordan and the middle east, what ideas does my right hon. Friend have for providing support to the Jordanian people during their crisis?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is right. We have a long friendship with Jordan, which will survive the disagreement we have had over the Gulf. There is no doubt that a stable Jordan is in Britain's interests. We have a bilateral aid programme, and we are also joining the substantial European Community aid programme, which amounts to £105 million, the first charge being delivered in February this year.

Mr. Kaufman: When the right hon. Gentleman has discussions with King Hussein and other leading figures in the Jordanian Administration, will he discuss with them the ideas which have been put to me by Mr. Peres, the leader of the Israeli Labour party, and which have been considered constructive by the Foreign Minister of Egypt and by Mr. Faisal Husseini, that Jordan can play an important part in bringing about a settlement of the Palestinian problem by helping to solve the problem of how the Palestinians should be represented?
Will the right hon. Gentleman make clear to the King and in every other circumstance the strong support of the United Kingdom Government for the strenuous and admirable effort made by Mr. James Baker to bring about a middle east settlement? Will he also publicly deplore in


this House the setting up of a new settlement by the Israeli Government on the west bank, which cannot do other than damage the attempts at a peace settlement in the middle east?

Mr. Hurd: 'We strongly support the efforts that Mr. Baker is making at the moment. We constantly urged the United States to make an energetic attempt to tackle the problem when the Gulf war was over, and Mr. Baker is now attempting to do that. Last week, in Luxembourg, he explained to us the lines on which he is working and they seemed sensible to me. Whether they will succeed is another matter.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) about the foolishness, to put it mildly, of the Israelis establishing, and trumpeting their establishment, new settlements on the occupied territories at the present time. That policy is wrong at all times, but particularly damaging at the present time.
One of the key problems is who speaks for the Palestinians. As the right hon. Gentleman said, Jordan might be able to play a helpful part in that. That is not certain, but it is something which is being considered, and it is worth doing so.

President Iliescu

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his discussions with President Iliescu of Romania.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had no opportunity for substantive discussion with President Iliescu during the latter's recent visit to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Thurnham: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that President Iliescu welcomes the help given by this country to the 170,000 children still in Romania's orphanages? Will he confirm that the British embassy in Bucharest will give all possible help to British couples who have been cleared to adopt Romanian orphans?

Mr. Hogg: Yes, indeed, but we must also remember that the interests of the children in question must be the paramount consideration of everyone.

Oral Answers to Questions — BILL PRESENTED

HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK (TOBACCO SMOKING)

Mr. Alan Amos, supported by Mr. George Foulkes, Mr. Roger Sims, Mr. John Home Robertson, Mr. Ronnie Fearn, Mr. Anthony Steen, Mr. John Bowis and Mr. Roger Gale presented a Bill to amend the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 so as to provide for the control of smoking in places of work; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 17 May and to be printed. [Bill 141.]

Local Authorities (Street Lighting)

Mr. Alan Meale: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require relevant local authorities to make an annual assessment of street lighting needs; to set standards of quality, maintenance and improvement; and for connected purposes.
I make no apology for raising the subject of street lighting once again, as it is important for hon. Members to recognise that the existing stock of street lighting in Britain is in an appalling state. Much of that stock is already unsafe as well as shamefully unsightly. In fact, most of the United Kingdom stock of municipal lighting is more than 40 years old, worn out and well past its true shelf life. A massive backlog of work cries out to be done.
Street lighting has become one of the Cinderellas of local authority spending, and as other pressures are exerted, the renewal of Britain's lighting stock has been put to the back of the queue. Worse still, every year, when the sun comes out and the clocks go forward, the problems of inadequate street lighting are forgotten for another year. For the most part, therefore, existing budget levels are totally inadequate.
Spending at current levels, for example, is now insufficient to meet the replacement of deteriorating columns in all metropolitan districts. Overall, estimates reveal that metropolitan districts should be spending some £19·5 million per year over the next five years to replace expired columns. However, only £6·9 million per year is being spent—a shortfall of about £12·5 million per annum.
A major spending programme is, therefore, genuinely required. That will not be achieved if we continue with the inaction and neglect that means putting things off year after year. The solutions lie with central and local government. It is no use the one blaming the other. Both must recognise that what is required to tackle the problem is a radical change of policy, with a new framework to produce solutions and actions, and funds to finance those actions.
Historically, street lighting has been installed to enable the safe movement of vehicles and pedestrians in the hours of darkness. Such installation has been related largely to the public highway and is based on accident reductions from nationally accepted "accident saving" figures.
The Department of Transport readily accepts that effective lighting reduces night time accidents by at least 30 per cent. and that lighting can reduce accidents in fog. It has been argued that the recent M4 carnage might have been avoided if lighting had been fitted as standard on the motorways, as the police had previously urged.
In recent years, there has been increasing evidence that the appropriate level of street lighting can make a significant contribution to crime reduction and, in particular, to reducing public apprehension of crime, not least among the elderly and women. A British standard now requires that pavements should be better lighted—in the past, the object was to light roads for traffic rather than give a care for those on foot.
Today it is evident that good road lighting installations improve the confidence of road users, particularly pedestrians, and assist the police and emergency services. Before and after studies of relighting schemes carried out by Middlesex polytechnic's centre for criminology in some

London boroughs showed that good lighting has a valuable role to play in the reduction of crime and the perceived fear of crime.
Recently, the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham commissioned one of the reports as part of its relighting programme. The feeling of personal safety was increased for 63 per cent. of householders and 62 per cent. of pedestrians questioned. In addition, the threat of harassment to women decreased spectacularly.
In the London borough of Tower Hamlets, another revelation was that 69 per cent. of people interviewed felt that their personal safety had increased and 94 per cent. believed that fear of crime had been reduced. In addition, residents believed strongly that crime and anti-social behaviour had decreased.
The Home Office has a tendency—indeed, it is always tempted—to dismiss this kind of strong human reaction as unscientific, perhaps because it does not do the research itself. That is probably why, of all London boroughs, it chose Wandsworth for its research, the results of which we have been awaiting for far too long.
The House will also be interested to know that six independent academic surveys are being carried out at present in the major cities of Manchester, Birmingham, Hull, Leeds, Glasgow and Cardiff on the relationship between street lighting, crime, the fear of crime and the quality of life. The work involves a relighting scheme preceded and followed by detailed survey work by academics from local universities and polytechnics.
I am informed that as yet it is too early to provide a comprehensive picture from the initial survey findings, but the results in some of the large cities are as dramatic as those of the first surveys in London. Street lighting has been shown to have an important effect on crime, fear of crime and the quality of people's lives. Between 65 per cent. and 75 per cent. of people regard fear of going out alone after dark as a problem.
Some examples of that include the fact that more than half those questioned said that they deliberately avoid certain streets at night because of fear. More than 60 per cent. of people regard their street lighting as inadequate and poorly spaced. In a large 1960s housing estate in Leeds, 95 per cent. of people believed that improved street lighting would be the most effective way to increase women's safety in the locality.
One problem for local authorities is that street lighting cuts across different Government Departments. The benefits of better public lighting are of real importance and are the proper interest of the Department of the Environment, the Home Office and the police. Yet the spending decisions fall to the Department of Transport and the highway authorities. As long as no one Department ultimately has responsibility, we are likely to have difficulty and we must find a way to bridge that crossover of interests.
In recent years there has been a revolution in public lighting technology. In many cases, spending on improved lighting can have a demonstrable pay-back—a positive rate of return. The London borough of Enfield is devoting half the funds raised from recycling glass to renewing its street lighting. A £300,000-a-year programme to replace existing street lighting will be combined with improvements to footpaths, shopping parades and mini-roundabouts. The borough engineer and surveyor has also


been authorised to carry out a boroughwide survey of accidents and to report on how improved lighting could help to enhance safety.
Today's lighting is better and cheaper. A single street light burning all night, every night, provides for seven households at an operating cost of £30 per annum. New lighting soon recovers its cost because it uses less energy and is much cheaper to operate. It brings benefits by reducing accidents, crime and fear of crime and by improving the quality of life especially for women and the elderly.
Local authorities must be encouraged to develop assessment criteria and techniques to build on the work of the academic surveys to date and the example of places such as Enfield, and they should be required to use that approach in ordering spending priorities. They should be required to ask themselves the following pertinent questions to show the physical state of clapped-out columns and equipment. First, what is the spending level of replacement lighting equipment and how does that compare with the levels required to prevent further deterioration? Secondly, when do we start the programme of replacement? Thirdly, what assessment has been made of the impact of improved lighting upon crime, the fear of crime and the quality of life of residents? Improved lighting is highly popular with men and women, young and old, and is a visible demonstration of concern for people as well as vehicles in the priorities for transport and highways.
The after-dark environment of our towns and cities is a key factor in our quality of life. In our residential areas as well as our town centres, a decent environment demands freedom from robbery and burglary, from vandalism, harassment and threats and from anxiety and fear and freedom to walk the streets at night. That would make better public lighting attractive to ordinary people.
I firmly believe that community problems such as street crime, vandalism, harassment and fear can be solved by well resourced. co-ordinated initiatives managed by local authorities. Better public lighting is a basic requirement of local communities. It would help to cut crime, to increase people's sense of security and to inspire wider community activity.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alan Meale, Mr. Frank Haynes, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. George Robertson, Ms. Joan Walley, Mr. Ted Rowlands, Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie, Mr. Jimmy Wray, Mr. George Buckley, Mr. Jimmy Hood, Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse and Mr. Ray Powell.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (STREET LIGHTING)

Mr. Alan Meale accordingly presented a Bill to require relevant local authorities to make an annual assessment of street lighting needs; to set standards of quality, maintenance and improvement; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 10 May and to be printed. [Bill 142.]

Orders of the Day — Atomic Weapons Establishment Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1

ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE CARRYING ON OF CERTAIN ACTIVITIES

Mr. Allan Rogers: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page I, line 22, leave out from 'for' to end of line 23 and insert
`an Executive Agency within the Civil Service of the Crown to carry out designated activities at the premises; and'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 3, in page 1, leave out lines 24 to 27.
No. 2, in page 1, line 24, leave out 'or another company' and insert 'Executive Agency'.
No. 4, in page 2, line 4, leave out 'their services and'
No. 5, in page 2, leave out lines 7 and 8.
No. 8, in page 2, leave out lines 10 to 13.
No. 9, in page 2, leave out lines 10 to 19.

Mr. Rogers: Our amendments are an attempt to restore a little sanity to this vital issue. Over the next few hours, we shall debate, in effect, the privatisation of the production of nuclear warheads. That fact cannot be dressed up, however much the Government may try to do so by using words such as "contractorisation", and by saying that they will keep control. As the Minister acknowledged throughout the Committee stage, this is privatisation—privatisation based on the Government's incompetence. In effect, they are saying that they cannot manage Aldermaston and our nuclear weapons production any more, and that they are not good enough at the job, so private contractors will have to be brought in.
As my hon. Friends know, the Conservative party is the party of big business. It likes to present an efficient streetwise image, although we know that it cannot manage the economy. The Minister of State for Defence Procurement was a member of the Committee, but he was too busy to turn up for its meetings. He was probably too busy polishing his antique cars to bother to show up. With his background, it is no wonder that he does not want to talk about defence procurement. After all, he is the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. Any procurement failures in the areas that we shall be discussing this afternoon and evening fall directly upon the right hon. Gentleman.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Alan Clark): Name one.

Mr. Rogers: The Minister says, "Name one," by golly. We shall be embarking upon the single-service debate shortly. Every procurement problem that we have faced has involved overruns in time and costs. The Minister knows that he is hopeless at doing his job, but he is a military historian. He is not like his right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), the Secretary of State for the Environment. [Interruption.] Well, I do not know


whether the right hon. Member for Henley is his friend. I believe that he described him as the "wrong horse" on one occasion. The right hon. Member for Henley was appointed Secretary of State for Defence specifically to introduce a business element into the Procurement Executive. He brought in his friend Sir Peter Levene to head the executive, and for the ensuing seven years we have had disaster after disaster.
The right hon. Member for Henley is now, as I have said, the Secretary of State for the Environment. Again, we shall have disaster after disaster. The right hon. Gentleman walked out of the Cabinet because he had quarrelled with his mistress or master. I am not sure how the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), should be described. I suppose that the right hon. Gentleman is likely to run out again over the community charge or poll tax problems.
The decision to privatise the production of nuclear warheads was based upon the incompetence and mismanagement of the Government. They set up a committee of inquiry under Sir Francis Tombs, who is now Lord Tombs and the chairman of Rolls-Royce. The Tombs report never really came out. It has become one of the most secret documents under this most secretive of all Governments.
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) asked on several occasions whether we could have sight of the Tombs report and other documents so that we could properly conduct our opposition to the Bill. We were allowed no sight of the report. The Government said that we could not have the report in full or in summary: the report remained entombed. The Government said originally that they would not let us have sight of it because it contained confidential advice to Ministers. There was talk of an internal advice note. In Committee, the Minister said:
The Tombs report is an internal report that was commissioned by the Ministry of Defence for its own use on the Atomic Weapons Establishment. Many other Departments in Whitehall commission their own reports to help them to manage their own Departments effectively. As it is an internal report, it is not for publication. Indeed, it would be bizarre if every such report were made public. That is the main reason for it being confined to the Ministry of Defence.
That is not a good enough reason. The Minister added:
Secondly … it refers to the Atomic Weapons Establishment."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 24 January 1991; c. 5.]
In other words, anything that refers to the establishment has a security classification.
Later, when the Government's credibility was punctured, they played their usual Tory trick. They wrapped themselves in a Union Jack and responded a little more hysterically, saying that disclosure would be against the national interest and against national security. The truth is that disclosure would be against the interests of the Tory party. I venture to guess that there is no classified material in the report. I guess also that there is no mention in it of the production of nuclear weapons. I have no doubt that it refers to organisation and management, but that could be the organisation of management of Marks and Spencer or Tesco. The same principles are involved.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: If there were classifed material in the Tombs report, would it not be simple to excise it and allow the remainder of the report,

and in particular its conclusions, to be put in the public domain? Would that not better inform the House when it is making a decision on whether the Bill should pass into law?

Mr. Rogers: We specifically asked on many occasions the Government to do that. [Interruption.] The Minister is not really interested in the Bill; he showed that in Committee. That is why he is rabbiting on now. Instead of gabbling with his colleagues on the Front Bench, he should listen to the debate; he might then learn something about his Department.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) raised a valid point. We asked the Minister to take the classified material out of the report. Hon. Members who serve on the Public Accounts Committee or the Select Committee on Defence receive reports from which large sections have been censored. Of course, as Members of Parliament we cannot be trusted. The Government would not even think that Members of Parliament should be privy to organisation and management reports. We gave the Government the opportunity to delete classified material from the reports, but they refused to do so. They shrouded themselves in the Union Jack and said that it would be against the national interest.
The Government took the same attitude with the Select Committee on Defence. Despite the fact that it is Conservative dominated, the Government said that it could not see the report. The Select Committee commented on that in its report:
A study undertaken by an outside consultant, on the board of a public company, is in a rather different category from advice tendered to Ministers by a Civil Servant acting in a professional capacity. It is unsatisfactory that, where a report by a distinguished industrialist may have formed the basis of a major change in policy, the House let alone the Select Committee charged by the House with oversight of the Department concerned, should be denied a view of it.
It is not only Labour Members who object to the Government's secretive manner; so does the Conservative-dominated Select Committee.
If mere management reshuffling was all that would result from the internal review and the Tombs report, we would say that, like every other Department, the Ministry of Defence was entitled to reorganise its management if it so wished. However, it is not just a matter of reorganisation. The Government have the right to instigate such reviews and to implement their findings on the basis of departmental management. But we are dealing with fundamental proposed legislation that will affect the way that we produce the most fearsome weapons that mankind can devise.
We tabled this amendment, which suggests an executive agency rather than contractorisation or privatisation, because we are greatly concerned about the way in which the Government are behaving. The employees and trade unions involved produced proposals and then presented a document to the Secretary of State. They met him and suggested ways in which the Government's fumbling, dithering and mismanagement could be overcome. The Secretary of State rejected those suggestions and said that the Government would go ahead with privatisation.
We understand the Government's objections to trade unions as a matter of political dogma. For the Government, anything that comes from the work force or the trade unions must be bad, while anything that comes


from their friends in the City or from big business must be good—except, of course, certain comments made yesterday, which must also be bad. However, as soon as the trade unions make a suggestion, the Government turn a blind eye. They jumped to the most extreme option available to deal with the problems at Aldermaston.
The Labour party and the trade unions accept that changes needed to be made, and still need to be made, in the management of the production of nuclear weapons. On many occasions we have criticised the Government, and we are not alone in doing so. The Tory-dominated Defence Committee said:
It must be open to question whether the shortage of production and management experience now identified at AWE should not have been recognised at a much earlier stage and remedial action taken then, rather than after the programme had run into difficulties. Much the same thing happened with the construction of the A90 building.… It would appear that the culture of the 'self-sufficient' research establishment was not only entrenched in AWE but also in senior MoD management who failed to grasp that the AWE lacked the management resources required".
Just as importantly, we also recognise, as did the trade unions and the workers in Aldermaston, that a change was needed in the relationship between the Atomic Weapons Establishment and the Government—a relationship that has deteriorated to such an extent that it has led to the Government's extraordinary admission of failure to run those establishments. However, never did we or any rational person expect the Government to come up with the half-baked, ill-considered proposals in the Bill. They are so daft that we can see the Minister of State's hand in them. Such proposals could come only from his hand. I notice that he has retreated from the Chamber in disarray. He probably realised what I was going to say and has gone to the underground garage to polish his Rolls-Royce.
Even the Select Committee on Defence was taken aback by the Government's proposals. Paragraph 57 of its report says:
On 5 December 1989, the Secretary of State announced measures far more radical and far reaching than the evidence put before us last year had implied, with his proposals for the full-scale contractorisation of AWE.
Paragraph 60 of the report says:
Although the Secretary of State recognised the 'valid concern of the Select Committee about the need for improvements at AWE' and sought to place his proposals in the context of that concern, it is clear that they go a great deal further than this Committee envisaged or suggested".
Not even the Select Committee on Defence, which investigated this issue in great detail, envisaged that the Government would jump over all the reasonable options and land up with this most unreasonable proposition.
Our amendment would set up an agency formed on the model that was envisaged in "Next Steps", the document issued by the Government. It would be fully in line with the Ibbs report, the recommendations of which were fully accepted by the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. The then Minister for the Civil Service, the right hon. Member for Shoreham (Sir R. Luce), characterised "next steps" as the Government's way of improving value for money and quality of service in the absence of a market mechanism. He also made it clear that
More direct accountability would not be allowed to undermine the Northcote-Trevelyan principles upon which the Civil Service is based."—
that it should not detract from the essential accountability of departmental Ministers to Parliament; such matters are permanent. By adopting that dogma-based suggestion, the Government are creating yet another division between

Parliament and the control of vital issues. When I spoke at a public meeting near Aldermaston some months ago, one of the supervisors said, "Mr. Rogers, I wish that they would realise in London that in Aldermaston we are producing not rocking horses but the most fearful weapons." However, it seems that the Government's political dogma has dictated their actions and prejudiced their judgment.
4 pm
The dogma is seen particularly in Government's attitude towards the work force in the establishments. If ever there were an industry requiring high morale to ensure maximum safety and security, it is this most potentially dangerous of all industries. But the Government, by their action, have created a poisoned atmosphere of mistrust among the workers and low morale, leading to increasing numbers of people leaving—the very thing that the Bill was supposedly intended to prevent.
The trade unions in the plant and the workers in the plant—more often constituents of Conservative Members than of Opposition Members—have continually made constructive suggestions to improve production and management. They have entered into pay agreements providing considerable flexibility and said that they were prepared to accept new frameworks for consultation. They recognise existing problems and have made positive suggestions, but the Government, due to their incompetence and inability to manage—which we see in so many aspects of public life today—have refused to respond. All reasonable objections and all reasonable suggested options have been rejected. That is why we have had to table the amendment and why we shall push it to a vote.

Sir David Mitchell: The Bill considerably affects my constituency because a large number of the people who work at Aldermaston live in the villages of Tadley, Baughurst and Kingsclere and a number of surrounding villages. Therefore, anything arising from the Bill, particularly as it affects the staff, is of significant importance to my constituency.
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister was helpful in explaining a number of the Bill's aspects as they affected my constituents. I think that hon. Members from both sides of the Committee will agree that the Minister was helpful throughout, and courteous in his treatment of the Committee. Therefore, I should like to express my gratitude to him, but remind him that, in politics, gratitude is a lively anticipation of further benefits to come.
Will the Minister repeat on the Floor of the House the assurances that he gave in Committee on four matters? First, will he give an assurance that existing and pre-contract No. 1 standards of safety will be maintained and rigorously enforced? Secondly, on security, will he assure us that the costs and standards of staff screening will remain the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence? Thirdly, will he assure us that there will be no reduction in the pensions that staff now have reason to expect, and that full indexation of pensions will remain?
Can my hon. Friend say a little more about a matter that I raised with him in Committee concerning contributors to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority pension scheme, known as the ukulele scheme? Those people were covered by the original arrangements for Aldermaston. When it was transferred to the Ministry


of Defence, they were given the option not to move to the new pension scheme, and many remained in the old one. There are about 700 people who would like to remain in that scheme. I have put the point to my hon. Friend, and he has expressed sympathy for the workers. Has he made any progress on the matter?
Fourthly, in Committee, my hon. Friend gave considerable assurances about redundancy. He did not expect any skill redundancies. If there are redundancies, he said that compensation would be on the same scale as for people employed in the civil service. Perhaps my hon. Friend can help me a little further by explaining how far into the future assurances that he can give about the maintenance of the arrangements for compensation for redundancy will continue. I understand that, at the time that the change to contractor employment takes place, redundancy will be fully covered by the existing arrangements. Will the workers be covered two months, three months or six months later by the assurances that my hon. Friend gave in Committee?

Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman has said that the Minister gave assurances in Committee on redundancy compensation and said that it would be in line with redundancy compensation for civil servants. Does not the hon. Gentleman remember that, when we pressed the Minister on the issue, he acknowledged that he would not have control over it, that the workers would be employed by an employing company and would effectively not be civil servants, and that therefore he could not give any promise that they would have civil service treatment if made redundant? If the hon. Gentleman recalls the events in Committee, he will remember that we reminded the Minister what happened when the royal dockyards were privatised.

Sir David Mitchell: My understanding was that the matter was dealt with fully and carefully in Committee when my hon. Friend explained that the contract would require the contractor to meet those terms on redundancy. I think that I understood correctly what my hon. Friend said in Committee. I am now seeking assurances as to how far the contract will bind the contractor into the future.
Assurances on those four matters are of enormous importance to my constituents. I hope that when he replies to the debate my hon. Friend can repeat those assurances on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I too should like to pay tribute to the courtesy and, indeed, good humour of the Minister in Committee. I regret that his courtesy did not extend to accepting the quality and effectiveness of many of the arguments mounted against various clauses as the Committee stage proceeded.
Amendment No.1 raises the fundamental issue of principle in the measure. That issue of principle was referred to by almost all who spoke on Second Reading and it came up time after time in our clause by clause consideration of the Bill in Committee. Of course, it gives rise to the consequences of some of the issues which have just been referred to and in respect of which undertakings have been sought. If the Government were not embarking upon contractorisation of the kind which the Bill

embodies, the undertakings sought by the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) would not be necessary.
I remain firmly of the view that, in the development and production of nuclear weapons, there should be no dilution of ministerial responsibility. Ministers should be obliged to come to the Dispatch Box and to answer to the House for that responsibility. I remain of that view because these are weapons of mass destruction. I suspect that, of all the duties that are incumbent upon Ministers of the Crown, the responsibility to determine whether weapons of mass destruction are deployed, or even used, is probably the most awesome.
In my judgment, it is in the public interest that those who have that responsibility—a responsibility that includes the development and production of such weapons—should be answerable to Parliament. It may well be said that they will remain answerable to Parliament if these proposals are allowed to go through. However, as I have sought to point out on Second Reading and at every available opportunity since, if there is any falling down in safety, if there is any element in the way that the contract is fulfilled that is contrary to the terms of the original contract, Ministers will not say at the Dispatch Box that their Department has failed to exercise proper supervision; they will say that there has been a breach of contract.
As I have pointed out on a number of occasions, it beggars description for us to believe that we should go to the High Court in the Strand and litigate about such matters, especially at a time of national or international tension, when I should have thought that nothing could be more calculated to be damaging to morale.
This amendment is at the heart of the proposal. I am not persuaded that the production and development of something as important and responsible as nuclear weapons should be handed away, or that it should be subjected to the interposition of some other company between Ministers and their responsibilities. After all, the proper defence of the realm is perhaps the most significant of all ministerial responsibilities.
The Minister has tried, with his courtesy, tact and good humour, but he has not persuaded me that the proposal in respect of which this amendment has been tabled is valid. I encourage my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote in support of the amendment. Respectfully, it seems to me that, if it were carried, the Bill would better reflect Ministers' responsibilities and would much better reflect the public interest.

Mr. John McWilliam: I am not prepared to argue, because the Select Committee on Defence, on which I have the honour to serve, has looked long and carefully at the Atomic Weapons Establishment. Indeed, many years ago it was given a duty by the House to report annually on Trident and our nuclear weapons, and it still does so. I am not convinced that the pre-existing structure was right for AWE and I would not for one minute attempt to argue that it was. It could have been amended without recourse to "next steps" agency status, but the Government were not prepared to do that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) has already quoted from a report in which the Committee was unanimous in saying clearly that the Government's proposals in the Bill go too far. There was no Division in the Select Committee. There has been only one Division in that Committee, which was many years


ago, because we strive to reach unanimity on major questions, especially on this most important question of the safety and continuity of our Atomic Weapons Establishment.
We have to consider the establishment in context. The only other establishment of the kind in the western world—one that is capable of making Trident warheads—was at Rocky Flats and it is now shut. The Americans have no capability to make warheads for their Trident missiles. That was widely reported last week in the Congressional Armed Forces Committee review, where the question was asked. I believe that diplomatic sources have been approached to find out whether Aldermaston could make warheads for them. I was given to understand that the reply was no and that Aldermaston was too busy trying to make them for our own requirements. Therefore, AWE is the only establishment of its kind. The question must be asked, what happened to Rocky Flats? Was it not capable of making weapons? Of course it was, and they were tested, but it was run in precisely the same way that the Government propose to run Aldermaston under the Bill and it became unsafe, polluted and a disaster area, which it still is. I do not believe that the installation will reopen.
4.15 pm
In 1978, the Pochin report was published. It dealt with a previous occasion when areas of Aldermaston became unsafe. Paragraph 3 of annex H states:
In matters of safety it is necessary to have redundancy in all aspects: in materials ('safety factor'), in control systems ('back-up'), in personnel ('emergency teams'), and so on. For example, a bridge or a lift that is just safe, but has no safety margin, paradoxically is in its most dangerous state. Redundancy of effort is as necessary as redundancy of materials. Where staff is the minimum necessary to achieve the bare level of safety any unusual concatenation of events may bring trouble.
I agree entirely with the Pochin report in that respect.
It may be convenient if I remind the House that because the new commercial management, which seems to have been in operation even before the Bill is passed, took steps to change the arrangements of shift working for routine maintenance—a desperately important safety requirement—for the first time since the closure of plant which led to the Pochin report, the plant failed to operate on one normal working day. Everybody turned up for work but could not work because the maintenance effort had been cut. That is just one example of what we appear to be facing.
A few weeks ago, when Dr. Glue appeared before the Select Committee, I questioned him about what had occurred. He is supposed to be responsible to the Minister for ensuring that the plant is operated in a safe and efficient manner. I was less than impressed by his response. He implied that it was more important to score minor points against the trade unions on a rota working agreement than to ensure the safety and continuity of the plant. What was the Government's response? It was to continue with the Bill as drafted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) explained in detail why we have tabled the amendments. I listened carefully to the points raised by the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell), who is not here. The only way that he can be certain about the issues that he raised is to join us in the Division Lobby in support of the amendments. Anything that the Minister says is consequent on him achieving a good enough contract with the managing contractor and

on that contract being complied with. As the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) rightly pointed out, if such matters are dealt with in that way, they will literally become matters of opinion, and that opinion will have to be decided in the High Court. That is not good enough for something as potentially dangerous as the Atomic Weapons Establishment.
I pay tribute to the management, to the employees and to the design of the new buildings at Aldermaston because they are excellent and work safely, and efficiently, when they are allowed to do so. Having said that, because of the previous direct civil service conditions of service and the contraints on the plant, the way it was operated as a research establishment and nothing more and the way in which the manufacturing aspect was taken care of were good enough. However, a "next steps" agency under the Government's own arrangements could take care of those problems without the potentially dangerous introduction of a management contractor, over which the House and Her Majesty's Government would have control only through the contract itself.
I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House who are convinced that Aldermaston should work in a safe and effective fashion to support the amendments. If they do not, they may allow Aldermaston to be run in such a way that there is a better than even chance, on the evidence before us, that it will have to be shut for safety reasons.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Those hon. Members who did not go through the sweat and long hours of the Committee stage should be reticent in arguing with their colleagues. I should have liked to serve on the Committee, but it took place alongside the proceedings on the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill on which I had a lot and a half to say, so I could not serve on the two Standing Committees at once. I excuse myself to the Minister for not being on the Committee.
This is a most important Bill. Like the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), I believe that the Bill is the core of an important argument. We have read press reports which may or may not be accurate to the effect that there is some question—I put it no higher—about the stability and long-term safety of existing British nuclear weapons.
I had the honour to be asked to contribute to the obituaries of the late Lord Penney. I recall that one of his anxieties over the years was that testing, monitoring and checking had not taken place because, the distinguished physicist argued, no one could be certain that arms that were stored for a long or longish period of years would remain stable. I am not in a position—I do not think that anyone in the House is—to make judgments about the physics of such weapons, but when a man of the experience of Lord Penney says that there is some doubt, it is up to us to take some notice.
I know better than to ask the Minister outright whether British nuclear weapons are unsafe. Even if he thought they were, I suspect that he would be justified in not telling me, at least on this occasion, in open debate and without the coverage of the Official Secrets Act, by which I am not covered. However, I am entitled to ask a rather different question. Are the Minister, the Secretary of State for Defence and their senior colleagues satisfied that, under the arrangements that they propose, important matters can be monitored in the detail that they certainly were at one stage by those working at Aldermaston? The answer


may be that they are quite relaxed about it, that they have made all the arrangements and are absolutely certain that there are no possible dangers and no possibility of the physics of instability applying at Aldermaston. If the Minister said that, I for one would not dispute it much further. I would take it as an honourable answer on behalf of the Government. However, I would like it to be put on the record that the Minister really believes that, under the proposed arrangements, the stability of the weapons can be properly and effectively monitored.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Through circumstances far beyond my control, I was unable either to speak in the Second Reading debate on the Bill or to take part in the Standing Committee proceedings. My information on what was discussed in the debates is somewhat limited, so I shall keep my remarks as brief as possible.
As both Aldermaston and Burghfield are in my constituency, the question of safety is of paramount importance to my constituents—not only those who work in the establishments, but everyone. I live only five miles from Aldermaston. My hon. Friend must be aware of the long-running saga of the leukaemia and lymphatic cancer cases. The Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment has looked at these, but has not yet come up with a definite answer.
COMARE—a Government body, albeit independent of Government control—is responsible for doing what its title suggests it should do. I applaud much of what this Bill contains. If it becomes law, will COMARE retain its predominant position? Will it still be able to investigate anything that gives rise to concern about safety in an establishment, anything that worries people living in the area? I am thinking about possible emissions from Aldermaston or Burghfield. Such an assurance would go a long way towards putting at rest the minds of those who are concerned that contractorisation and the safety element are not spelt out quite as clearly as we should like.
Over the 18 years during which I have represented the constituency of Newbury, there have been a number of reported leaks. On such occasions it is very reassuring to my constituents that their Member of Parliament can put down a question and expect a reply within three days, and that if that reply is not adequate further questions may be put down. If, in such an event, it is no longer possible to take some safeguarding steps on behalf of my constituents, contractorisation will damage itself in terms of the security that is necessary for the sake of the future of the establishments.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: My comments will be even more brief than those of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir Michael McNair-Wilson). I want simply to reinforce the points that he made and the argument that I understand was made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell). Aldermaston is indeed in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury, but it is also very close to the borders of three parliamentary constituencies, of which Basingstoke is one. As I live about one mile from the Aldermaston perimeter, I can beat the claim of my hon. Friend.
I hope that the Minister is taking serious note of hon. Members' concern about general matters of safety. Members of Parliament representing constituencies in this area feel that they have a particular responsibility. I welcome the assurances that my hon. Friend the Minister has given to date.

Mr. McWilliam: I am very surprised at what the hon. Gentleman is saying. In Committee, he had the opportunity to vote for specific safety amendments that we introduced, but he did not do so. Indeed, he opposed them.

Mr. Hunter: That is very easy to answer. I listened to the arguments of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, but was not convinced by them. That is why I did not vote for the amendments.

Mr. McWilliam: Rubbish.

Mr. Hunter: We listened for many hours to the arguments, but we were not convinced. The fault lies with the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, not with us.

Mr. Rogers: Even if the hon. Gentleman felt that our arguments were not good enough, surely he should have been convinced by the content of the amendments, every one of which was worded carefully with a view to enhancing the safety aspects of the operation at Aldermaston. I accept that we may not have been able to convince the hon. Gentleman by argument, but surely the text should have done the job.

Mr. Hunter: I do not dispute the hon. Gentleman's intentions, but I certainly dispute the force of the argument which supported the amendments, and for those reasons I shall have no part of them.
I conclude by stressing that I look forward to further reassurances from my hon. Friend the Minister.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle): It is a pleasure to reply to the first debate on the Bill on Report. As the House will know, the amendments are intended to ensure that the Atomic Weapons Establishment will in future be operated not by a commercial company but by an executive agency within the civil service. We have had a very sober debate, and I shall seek to answer the points that have been made and restrict myself to the scope of the amendments.
We have to admit that, if we accepted the amendments there would be no need for the Bill. Obviously, the Secretary of State has the power to set up an executive agency without a Bill. Therefore, everything in the Bill relates directly or indirectly to the fact that, under contractual operation, the staff at the AWE would no longer be civil servants. However, I should like to reply to the point made initially by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) and stress that we are not privatising the assets, property or equipment of the AWE, which will remain under the ownership of the Secretary of State. We are transferring only the management of the manufacturing. It is important to bear that in mind when people start talking about privatisation.

Mr. Rogers: I am afraid that, like the Minister of State, who has left the Chamber, the Minister simply was not listening to what I said. I never said that the Government were privatising the assets or property of the AWE. I said


that they were privatising the management of the production of nuclear warheads within the establishment. I accept that the Minister will remain the janitor of the buildings.

Mr. Carlisle: I am glad that, in that poetic way, the hon. Gentleman has made it clear that we have reached agreement on that particularly important point.
In contrary to his assertions, we have seriously considered the arguments in favour of a "next steps" agency at AWE. Such agencies have considerable attractions for those organisations which should be part of the civil service, but after careful thought we reached the conclusion that the AWE is not such an establishment. However, I should like to join the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) in paying tribute to the staff at AWE. The fact that they are being contractorised is no slight on their considerable and unique talents, expertise and skills. Some of the staff at AWE are pre-eminent in the world in their branch of science.
However, we believe that enterprises, especially industrial ones, are generally run more efficiently in the private sector. Therefore, where it is right and feasible to introduce full contractorisation, we prefer to do so.
The Atomic Weapons Establishment is involved in research and development and in manufacturing. In our view, such an establishment belongs in industry and not in government. Of course, the fact that the business is nuclear means that very stringent safeguards are required, but not that personnel must be civil servants. Just because manufacturing is best managed by those with experience of industry, agency status would be only a partial solution to the problems at AWE. That would not involve the full and early introduction of private sector expertise and would not allow access to the production and management expertise of a large industrial concern. In my view, it is only full contractorisation that can give full, private-sector management flexibility, pay flexibility without reference to Whitehall, as well as the all-important access to the corporate expertise of a major industrial company or consortium.
AWE does everything from research and development to production, in-service maintenance support and final dismantling. AWE is therefore a complete industry and it should be allowed to benefit from the industrial management expertise of the private sector. I believe that the logic of that argument means that we have every right to carry it through.
We must always remember that our ability to meet the challenging Trident programme which is now building up is our prime aim. That is vital if we are to sustain our independent deterrent. We believe that the contractorisation of the operations at the AWE will secure that aim.
I have visited the various establishments, and I know that there is concern among the employees about various aspects of the change because we are asking them to leave the civil service. Many of the issues raised by them relate to employment and safety.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) for his kind words, as well as for those of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). Those hon. Members and others are particularly concerned about safety aspects, which formed the bulk of the questions raised in the debate. Safety is the paramount aim, which

we intend to achieve. We shall have all the existing safeguards, such as the safety directorate, but we shall also introduce two important additions.
First, the compliance office, which is responsible to and employed by the Ministry of Defence, will be represented at the four establishments. The staff of that office will have the right to go anywhere in those establishments to monitor any activity to ensure that full safety is achieved. The second addition is the safety requirement which will figure largely in the contract. Penalties will be imposed if safety is not properly pursued, and, in addition, incentives will be part of the contract to reward excellent performance on safety.

Mr. McWilliam: Who will pay the salary of the compliance officer and his staff?

Mr. Carlisle: The MOD. The staff will be employed by the MOD, thereby ensuring their independence.
If the contractor impinges on the safety requirements or does not live up to his legal requirements he will, for the first time, be subject to a court of law, which the Secretary of State never can be.

Mr. Dalyell: Is the compliance office responsible for passing judgment on the stability or otherwise of existing nuclear weapons? If not, who is responsible?

Mr. Carlisle: I shall deal with that point in a moment, but it is important to remember that the responsibility for safety does not rest just with the compliance office. That responsibility will rest largely with the contractor and the work force.
As I said, the safety directorate will remain at the AWE, and the unions and all the employees will have a direct interest in safety. When I visited those establishments, they told me that they would be the first people to jump on any lapse in safety standards according to their views. Therefore, safety is not just the responsibility of one person; it will depend upon the combined surveillance and alertness of a range of people.
The points raised about safety are of particular relevance to the local people and to my hon. Friends the Member for Hampshire, North-West and for Newbury (Sir M. McNair Wilson), who wrote to me raising points of interest throughout the Bill's passage, and it is nice to see him in recovered health, and my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), who also pursued safety matters throughout the Bill's passage.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Will the Minister tell us a bit more about how he envisages the compliance officer operating? Can any employee of the private contractor go freely to the compliance officer and say that an infraction of procedures has taken place, of which the latter may not be aware because some of the poisons are invisible and cannot be recorded on a monitor, without it affecting his promotion or job prospects?

Mr. Carlisle: That would be a reasonable way to proceed. The compliance officer will not only receive information as a result of his own observations and studies but also from within the establishment. I hope that what the hon. Gentleman suggests takes place.

Sir David Mitchell: Since the compliance officer is to have a relationship with the Ministry of Defence, can my


hon. Friend give the assurance for which my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) asked in relation to answering questions in the House?

Mr. Carlisle: All Members of Parliament will be able to ask questions in the House on any matter concerning the AWE, and the Secretary of State will have to answer them.

Mr. Frank Haynes: What about the question of safety? It will be the responsibility of the compliance officer to see that everything is okay, but what powers will he have if he notices that the contractor does not have enough staff on the job to provide safety cover? That could happen tomorrow, and we want to know what the compliance officer would do if it did.

Mr. Carlisle: The compliance office will have strong powers. It will be able to instruct the contractor to remedy the defects, and if the contractor fails to do so, the compliance office will have the power to shut down that part of Aldermaston; so its powers are strong.

Mr. Rogers: If that is the case, why are the compliance officer's terms of reference not within the Bill? As I understand it, the compliance office will be set up. Under the terms of contract as outlined at various times by the Minister, if the contractor conforms he will receive his money, if he puts up a good performance he will receive extra money, but if he does not perform, the only way to make him do so is to go to court. That is what the Minister said when he opened the debate. Why does not the Minister put the functions and duties of the compliance office in the Bill, as the Opposition suggested in an amendment in Committee?

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the House long enough to know that everyone frowns on a part of a Bill that is superfluous. The Secretary of State already has the power to set up a compliance office. To prove that, the compliance office is already being formed. It is bad practice to put into a Bill powers which already exist, and it is right to follow good legislative procedures.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Is not the Minister being a little disingenuous in that answer? This is a matter of public confidence. We are changing, dramatically and fundamentally, the way in which nuclear weapons are developed and produced. Would it not be in the interests of public confidence and in support of what the Government now propose to ensure that the compliance officer has express statutory responsibilties in respect of the new arrangements that the Bill seeks to introduce?

Mr. Carlisle: No, the Secretary of State already has the power to set up a compliance office, and he has given undertakings time after time that the compliance office will be a central part of our plans for contractorisation. As I said, it is superfluous to write it into the Bill. If one were to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman's line of argument, every Bill would be massive, because everyone would be seeking guarantees. I remind Opposition Members that this is a narrow Bill, which creates arrangements in connection with the setting up of an employing company.

Mr. Haynes: The Minister really is talking a load of rubbish.

Mr. Timothy Kirkhope: The hon. Gentleman cannot say that.

Mr. Haynes: I am saying it. He is talking rubbish. We want to know what kind of safety cover will be available in the units and what kind of responsibilities this chappie will have. He has massive responsibilities and it is a load of rubbish to say that they should not be in the Bill. It is not just hon. Members who want to know exactly what responsibilities this chap will have. The Minister is pushing things to one side in this important measure.

Mr. Carlisle: If the hon. Gentleman wants to make such an intervention, he should listen more carefully to the debate. I have answered quite a few of his points already and it was a mistake to give way to him.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has been very patient. He raised an important point. As I understand it, he was talking about the implications of the Drell report. We remain closely in touch with our United States colleague. Governments of all parties give the most careful consideration to safety matters, because safety of the nuclear warheads and missiles is pre-eminent.
It may be of some comfort to the hon. Gentleman to know that the warhead that we will be using in Trident will be designed and manufactured in the United Kingdom. It is not the same as that designed in the United States, although we have confidence in the United States warhead. It will be the subject of a comprehensive series of trials and independent assessments to ensure its safety both before and during operational service. There is an independent check on the safety of our nuclear weapons in the form of the nuclear weapons safety committee and the ordnance board, both of which have independent status and which report on and study carefully the safety of our warheads.
We take the matter extremely seriously, but we are confident that what we are designing and have designed is safe. In addition, as I have already explained, safety will be central to the contract, and we will not compromise on it one jot. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman. It is obviously a matter that we will have to continue to regard seriously.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the ordnance board, under the terms of the contract, have complete access to the confidential information of the contractors? Are the contractors obliged to reveal anything that is asked of them to the ordnance board?

Mr. Carlisle: The contract has not yet been written, as Labour Members know, but we intend to put into it everything necessary for safety. The nuclear weapons safety committee and the ordnance board will continue to have the full authority of their independent status.

Mr. Rogers: To use the words of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) the Minister's response is disingenuous. We tried in Committee to get details of the contract, and we were told that the contract had not yet been drawn up. For the past year, however, 22 people at Aldermaston have been carrying out the functions of phase 1 of the contract. The Minister therefore should not say that we do not know what is in the contract because it has not yet been drawn


up. There is an extant contract, and my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow has asked whether the provisions governing the ordnance board are in that contract.
The Minister appears to be nodding. In that case, next year, after we win the election, we shall check those terms, because he will not let us know them now.

Mr. Carlisle: The provision does not have to be in the present contract, because the place has not yet been contractorised. So the authority of the ordnance board and the nuclear weapons safety committee is the same as it has been for the the past few years. The hon. Gentleman cannot have understood the Bill. At the moment, in phase 1, there is an interim contract. Only in October 1992 will we enter the second phase of full contractorisation. There is no point in starting to draw up the contract in detail until we have secured the Bill.
The hon. Member for Blaydon asked a question about safety, referring to the American experience. The American experience, and indeed the experience of Russia, where there was an horrific nuclear explosion at Chernobyl in a nuclear institution run by the State, show that, whether nuclear facilities are owned by the state or are privately operated, safety has to be considered as a separate issue. We have studied the American experience carefully and have ensured that we would add the safeguard of the compliance office to our current safeguards. Safety will be written into the contract, and we are satisfied that our arrangements will meet any criticisms that arose with the GOCO experience.

Mr. Dalyell: There must be a careful study of the American experience. Has the Ministry of Defence considered the Zebrowski report on Three Mile Island in that context?

Mr. Carlisle: I am certain that it will have done, but perhaps I should write to the hon. Gentleman, who is a past master at bowling googlies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury raised an important point about the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment. Its studies will continue and have our full support. We value them highly. It may be of some comfort to my hon. Friend to know that the latest study of his area showed that radiation from Aldermaston and Burghfield was negligible—far too low to account for any observed increase in childhood leukaemia in his area. In any event, I understand that the increases noted appear to have taken place in major urban areas such as Reading, not in the villages next to the Atomic Weapons Establishment site.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Would it be fair to ask my hon. Friend whether the tritium leak will be referred to the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment?

Mr. Carlisle: That is very much up to the Committee. The incident took place in a research facility which had nothing to do with the manufacturing operation now being helped by Hunting-BRAE. The leak was very small—only two thousandths of the normal annual natural radiation to which people are exposed. Nevertheless, any leak of any sort is serious, and we are investigating it. We intend to learn the lessons of any inquiry into it.

Mr. Rogers: Again I do not understand the Minister's answer. The hon. Member for Newbury (Sir M.

McNair-Wilson), in whose constituency Aldermaston lies, asked the Minister about the tritium leak. I understood the Minister to reply that the leak took place in a research facility, but in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes), he said that it took place in the A91 building, which is a production facility, not a research facility. Can the Minister clear up the confusion?

Mr. Carlisle: The A91 building has not even been commissioned yet. There is no tritium in the A91 facility. The hon. Gentleman must get his facts right. [HON. MEMBERS: "You gave that information yourself."] I shall have to look into the matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West was worried about other aspects of safety and security. The Ministry of Defence will retain responsibility for the positive vetting of everyone concerned. Redundancy terms for anyone now at the AWE will continue as if they were in the civil service before vesting day. Those terms will be written into the contract, which will come up for renewal after five or seven years, but the redundancy terms would continue thereafter as a condition of service, which could not change without the employees' agreement. If employees did not agree, they could claim unfair constructive dismissal, under which they would be entitled to their previous redundancy entitlement. That gives them security.

Mr. McWilliam: Will the Minister confirm that the protection under TUPE will last only until vesting day, and that from vesting day plus one it will disappear?

Mr. Carlisle: Will the hon. Gentleman repeat that question?

Mr. McWilliam: Will the Minister confirm that the employees are protected by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 until vesting day, but that after they have been transferred into their new employment, they will lose that protection? Even before that time, they can claim only unfair dismissal.

Mr. Carlisle: That is not true. The TUPE regulations persist for a certain time after vesting day.
Pensions were debated at length in Committee, and the House will recall that AWE staff are usually members either of the principal civil service pension scheme or the UKAEA principal non-industrial superannuation scheme. Following contractorisation, a single new scheme will be established for AWE staff; it will match as closely as possible the schemes as they are at vesting day. No one will be made to suffer detriment to their pension arrangements as a result of contractorisation. The pension rights will be written into the contract and thus guaranteed, so that everyone's pension will be at least as good as the pension that he can expect now.

Sir Anthony Durant: Will my hon. Friend comment on the transferability of the new pension under the new structure? Will it be transferable to other pension funds if the staff move elsewhere?

5 pm

Mr. Carlisle: I shall continue with the section of my brief that I was on before my hon. Friend intervened. I understand that he may wish to return to the question of transferability.
I fully understand that individuals feel an attachment to their pension scheme and may be anxious at the prospect of leaving it. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West and others were especially concerned about members of the AWE staff who are members of what they have described as the atomic energy scheme. I undertook sympathetically to consider the arguments that my hon. Friends advanced.
I am pleased to confirm that, if they so choose, staff of both pension schemes will be able to leave their accrued service up to vesting day in their present schemes. They will not have to transfer their accumulated pension rights to the new AWE scheme. A person will therefore be able to receive an atomic energy or civil service pension on retirement that is based upon their length of service before vesting day. That will be topped up by an additional pension under the new scheme that covers service after vesting day. This option may be especially relevant to the older AWE members of the atomic energy scheme, given their attachment to the scheme and the considerable length of service covered by it. To this extent, no one is being forced out of his or her existing pension scheme.
I have discussed in some detail with my colleagues in the Treasury and the Department of Energy the possibility of going further and allowing, by amendment to the Bill, service by ex-atomic energy staff at AWE after vesting day to accrue within the atomic energy pension scheme as opposed to the new AWE scheme. My hon. Friends will remember that the possibility was debated in detail in Committee.
I must tell them, however, that the conclusion of the discussions with the Treasury and the Department of Energy was that it would be wrong to agree to such an amendment. That is partly because of longer-term complications that would result in having some former civil service staff at AWE in a different scheme from other employees, and partly because it is the Government's general policy that, whenever staff are transferred from the public to the private sector, they should not remain in a public service pension scheme.
I must emphasise that staff will not have to take their accrued service in the atomic energy scheme and the civil service out of the atomic energy scheme if they do not wish to do so. I can help to some extent those who are concerned about these matters. I know from the contents of my postbag and from talking to those who are concerned that the older members of the atomic energy pension scheme are by no means entirely content with all its provisions. Some of those at AWE are less than happy about the scheme's constraints on retirement before the age of 65.
I shall ask my officials to discuss with the trade unions possible ways of extending to ex-atomic energy staff at AWE some of the flexibility that will be incorporated in the new pension scheme for AWE staff after contractorisation. It is unlikely that we shall be able to substitute 60 years for 65, but we may be able to ameliorate the position somewhat. To that extent, the new pension scheme at the contractorised AWE will be an improvement on the pension conditions which would otherwise have prevailed for the ex-atomic energy staff at AWE. When the pension

arrangements are improved in the way that I have described, I hope that my hon. Friends will be partially satisfied at least.
Since 5 December 1990, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence first announced the Government's proposal to introduce full contractorisation at AWE, there has been much debate about the principle of contractorisation and the options. I have heard nothing to weaken my conviction that the introduction of a contract operation with appropriate safety, security and financial safeguards is the best way forward for AWE. The House will know that AWE has been able to meet the requirements of the early stages of the Trident programme. As the requirements increase and AWE's manpower shortage continues, it is necessary that it should do even better.
To achieve that, we must bring to AWE the production management expertise and freedom to manage which a contractor operation can offer. We cannot secure that freedom or full management and manufacturing experience if AWE remains an agency. I therefore recommend that the House reject the amendments.

Mr. Rogers: I am most unhappy with the Minister's reply, although I am obviously pleased, as are those who represent employees at Aldermaston, with the proposed alterations to the pension fund. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends would welcome the proposals, as would the work force and the trade unions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) asked the Minister whether he could give any assurance that employees would be protected from redundancy after vesting day plus one, and referred to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. The Minister replied, "Yes, that is in the regulations." Where does it appear? I ask the question at an early stage in my remarks, so that those in the Box can have time to advise the Minister.

Sir David Mitchell: I understand that the assurance appeared in the contract and not in the regulations. It will be part of the terms of the contract that the contractor has to comply with the civil service terms on redundancy during the term of the contract. I understand also that that is what my hon. Friend the Minister said in Committee. Perhaps my hon. Friend will have the opportunity to confirm that. I hope that I have succeeded in explaining why the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) cannot find the assurance in the regulations.

Mr. Rogers: I was not talking about what was said in Committee. I was referring to what the Minister said at the Dispatch Box a short while ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon asked the Minister whether there would be any protection from redundancy for workers on vesting day plus one. The Minister replied that the answer was to be found in the 1981 regulations. My colleagues and I have read the regulations, and it seems that they do not provide the assurance that the Minister suggested. Our argument is that all the talk about protecting people's rights falls in the absence of the assurance in the regulations.

Mr. McWilliam: Perhaps my hon. Friend will reflect on the Minister's statement that the contract has not yet been written. I do not know how he can construct legislation


that ends in a contract when he does not know what will be in the contract. Have I understood correctly what the Minister appears to be saying?

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: rose——

Mr. Rogers: I shall respond, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon intervened in my speech. He has raised a point of interest, not merely a debating point.
There are 7,000 workers who are concerned about redundancy, and most of them are the constituents of the Minister's hon. Friends. I am happy to allow the Minister to make even a lengthy intervention to clarify the issue.

Mr. Carlisle: With the leave of the House, I shall intervene. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) has provided the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) with the correct answer. The 1981 regulations have been implemented in the transfers of many employees, not least those in the dockyards.
It seems that the hon. Member for Rhondda has not read my answer on building A91. There is no tritium in the building and it has not yet been commissioned. It has been constructed for the treatment of low-level liquid waste. Some faults were found in it while it was in the process of being commissioned. That is why there was no radioactive material in it. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads my answer.

Mr. Rogers: I am quite happy to read the answer. The Minister said that there was corrosion in the A91 building and that it was a production, not a research, facility. I have the grace to say that, in that matter, the Minister may be right. I only wish that he had the grace to apologise when he has been shown so often to be wrong. Hansard will show what he said about the transfer of undertakings on the protection of employment. He cannot bury his answer under a frivolous remark about safety problems. Many constituents of Conservative Members are concerned about the protection of redundancy and pension rights. Indeed, I am not sure about any protection. If those people asked me for advice, I could not give it to them.
The hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell), who is a former Transport Minister, is an expert in privatisation matters. I served on the Committee that considered the Bill to privatise bus services. He was so good that, when we asked him why he wanted to privatise bus services, he said, "I went to Cheltenham, where there is a private scheme. I jumped on a couple of buses and asked a few old ladies what they thought of privatised bus services. They said that they thought they were good, and that is why we want to extend privatisation throughout the country." That was the great scientific survey on which the Department of Transport based the privatisation of bus services. Nevertheless, more thought went into the privatisation of bus services than has gone into this Bill, which will privatise the production of nuclear warheads. It is a cobbled-together Bill.
I do want to delay the House as we are anxious to proceed to the first vote. I am anxious to discover how Conservative Members will vote. When we tabled amendments in Committee dealing with such matters as safety, pensions and redundancy, which sought to enhance the position of the constituents of Conservative Members and others who, like me, live in south Wales, Conservative Members voted with the Government. We must not forget

that Aldermaston is only one of four atomic weapons establishments. If Conservative Members had any guts or gumption, they would vote with the Opposition tonight. They cannot be clear about the issues. I challenge them—especially those who have had letters from constituents, copies of which have been sent to us—to vote with us tonight.
I know that the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West voted with us once in Committee, so perhaps I am doing him a disservice. He spoke fluently and impressed the Minister. Conservative Members must put their votes where their mouths are, and that means voting with us tonight.

Sir David Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman has issued a challenge, and I will take it head on. My constituents have raised certain matters with me through letters, meetings and interviews. On each of the four matters on which I asked for assurances from my hon. Friend the Minister, I have had assurance. That is why I feel confident in supporting my hon. Friend in the Lobby.

Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman is easily pleased. He should have pressed the Minister to include some safeguards in the Bill. The Minister said that it is a very narrow Bill. When we spoke about share deals and other matters being included in the Bill, he said that it was too narrow. It is; it is only three or four pieces of paper. There would have been plenty of room to include the regulations and safeguards that we want. We would have been quite happy to read a couple more pages if that meant that we could protect the interests of those working in the establishments.
5.15 pm
We are not happy with the Minister's replies. He will not accept the amendment that would establish an agency, and that is a severe indictment of his party's policy. We want an agency based on the "next steps" model, which is his party's policy. It has been promulgated, developed and promoted by the Government, but the Minister would not trust it to run Aldermaston. He claims that any industrial activity is better in private hands. We all know what happened to Rolls-Royce; it did not do very well in private hands.

Mr. Greg Knight: It did.

Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman is ignorant of what happened. He is only a young lad in school at the time. His school probably did not have newspapers. The hon. Gentleman is one of those to whom the Prince of Wales referred recently.
Rolls-Royce was a private company, but it went bust. It was taken into public ownership and turned around, and it was then returned to the private sector. Ferranti, another defence company, also went bust, was taken into public ownership and turned around. It is now back in the hands of the private-sector friends of the Tory party. There are numerous examples of private companies which, were it not for public intervention, would have collapsed. That is the history of the car industry. The private-sector friends of the Minister are not really that good.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's theme. Will he apply his mind to what would happen if a company that obtained the contract that the Bill would pass to the private sector fell into liquidation or


became incapable of fulfilling its responsibilities under the contract? What would be the consequences for national security?

Mr. Rogers: I had intended to deal later with the problem of the contract. The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke eloquently about that both in Committee and in his earlier intervention. The only recourse against a contractor would be through a court of law. Let us suppose that there was an emission of radioactive waste, followed by litigation against the company. Which company would be the subject of that litigation? Would it be the No. 2 company—the employing company—which is the only company with which the Government will have any connection? At present, the contracting companies are Hunting Engineering, Brown and Root and the Atomic Energy Authority. One of those companies is an American company based in Dallas. Another is a major engineering company, for which the production of nuclear warheads will be only a minor activity.
Against whom can the constituents of Conservative Members litigate? The employing company will exist only to employ people. What assets will it have? The Minister has already said that the Government will not give it any. Against whom can the workers and the communities litigate should there be yet another emission of radioactive material?
The proposal for contractorisation has been ill conceived out of the incompetence of the Government. It is a cobbled-together Bill. In Committee, it was evident time and again that the Government had not thought through the problems. They saw the American GOCO scheme and wanted to follow it, rather like some people wanted to follow schemes for marinas and theme parks. The Government therefore picked on the Atomic Weapons Establishment and decided to make it into a GOCO scheme without thinking the matter through. The production of nuclear warheads is far too serious an issue for a Government experiment. That is why we shall press our amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 170, Noes 219.

Division No. 125]
[5.19 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Allen, Graham
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Alton, David
Canavan, Dennis


Anderson, Donald
Cartwright, John


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Armstrong, Hilary
Clelland, David


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Barron, Kevin
Corbett, Robin


Battle, John
Cousins, Jim


Bellotti, David
Crowther, Stan


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cryer, Bob


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Cummings, John


Benton, Joseph
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bermingham, Gerald
Cunningham, Dr John


Bidwell, Sydney
Dalyell, Tam


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Darling, Alistair


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Dixon, Don


Caborn, Richard
Dobson, Frank


Callaghan, Jim
Doran, Frank





Duffy, A. E. P.
Meale, Alan


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Eadie, Alexander
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Fatchett, Derek
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Faulds, Andrew
Morgan, Rhodri


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Fisher, Mark
Mowlam, Marjorie


Flannery, Martin
Mullin, Chris


Flynn, Paul
Murphy, Paul


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Nellist, Dave


Foster, Derek
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Foulkes, George
O'Brien, William


Fyfe, Maria
O'Neill, Martin


Galloway, George
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Patchett, Terry


George, Bruce
Pendry, Tom


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Pike, Peter L.


Gould, Bryan
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Prescott, John


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Primarolo, Dawn


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Grocott, Bruce
Radice, Giles


Hain, Peter
Randall, Stuart


Harman, Ms Harriet
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Haynes, Frank
Reid, Dr John


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Richardson, Jo


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Robinson, Geoffrey


Henderson, Doug
Rogers, Allan


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Rooker, Jeff


Home Robertson, John
Rooney, Terence


Hood, Jimmy
Rowlands, Ted


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Ruddock, Joan


Howells, Geraint
Salmond, Alex


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Sedgemore, Brian


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Ingram, Adam
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Janner, Greville
Short, Clare


Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)
Skinner, Dennis


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Kennedy, Charles
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Kirkwood, Archy
Snape, Peter


Lamond, James
Soley, Clive


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Spearing, Nigel


Livingstone, Ken
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Steinberg, Gerry


Loyden, Eddie
Straw, Jack


McAllion, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McCartney, Ian
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McFall, John
Turner, Dennis


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Vaz, Keith


McKelvey, William
Wallace, James


McLeish, Henry
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Maclennan, Robert
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


McMaster, Gordon
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


McWilliam, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Madden, Max
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Marek, Dr John
Winnick, David


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Worthington, Tony


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)



Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Martlew, Eric
Mr. Ken Eastham and Mrs. Llin Golding.


Maxton, John



Meacher, Michael





NOES


Adley, Robert
Bevan, David Gilroy


Aitken, Jonathan
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Body, Sir Richard


Amos, Alan
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Arbuthnot, James
Boswell, Tim


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Aspinwall, Jack
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Bowis, John


Batiste, Spencer
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Bellingham, Henry
Brazier, Julian


Bendall, Vivian
Bright, Graham


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter






Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Kilfedder, James


Buck, Sir Antony
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Budgen, Nicholas
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Burns, Simon
Kirkhope, Timothy


Burt, Alistair
Knapman, Roger


Butterfill, John
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Knowles, Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Knox, David


Carttiss, Michael
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Latham, Michael


Chope, Christopher
Lawrence, Ivan


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Cormack, Patrick
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Couchman, James
Lord, Michael


Cran, James
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Critchley, Julian
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Currie, Mrs Edwina
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Curry, David
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Maclean, David


Davis, David (Boothferry)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Day, Stephen
Madel, David


Devlin, Tim
Malins, Humfrey


Dickens, Geoffrey
Mans, Keith


Dorrell, Stephen
Marland, Paul


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Dover, Den
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Dykes, Hugh
Mates, Michael


Evennett, David
Maude, Hon Francis


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Favell, Tony
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Fishburn, John Dudley
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Miller, Sir Hal


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Mills, lain


Franks, Cecil
Miscampbell, Norman


French, Douglas
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Fry, Peter
Mitchell, Sir David


Gale, Roger
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Gardiner, Sir George
Monro, Sir Hector


Gill, Christopher
Moore, Rt Hon John


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Moss, Malcolm


Goodlad, Alastair
Mudd, David


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Neale, Sir Gerrard


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Nelson, Anthony


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Nicholls, Patrick


Gregory, Conal
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Grist, Ian
Norris, Steve


Hague, William
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Paice, James


Hannam, John
Patnick, Irvine


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Harris, David
Porter, David (Waveney)


Haselhurst, Alan
Powell, William (Corby)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Riddick, Graham


Hayward, Robert
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hunter, Andrew
Speller, Tony


Irvine, Michael
Squire, Robin


Irving, Sir Charles
Stanbrook, Ivor


Jack, Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Steen, Anthony


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Stevens, Lewis


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Key, Robert
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)





Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)
Watts, John


Summerson, Hugo
Wells, Bowen


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wheeler, Sir John


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Whitney, Ray


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Widdecombe, Ann


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wiggin, Jerry


Thorne, Neil
Wilkinson, John


Thornton, Malcolm
Wilshire, David


Thurnham, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Wood, Timothy


Tracey, Richard
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Trotter, Neville
Yeo, Tim


Twinn, Dr Ian
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Viggers, Peter



Walden, George
Tellers for the Noes:


Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Tom Sackville.


Waller, Gary



Warren, Kenneth

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Rogers: I beg to move amendment no. 6 in page 2, line 8, at end insert—
'(3A) The secretary of state shall not make arrangements under subsection (3) above with any company—

(a) in respect of which more than 10 per cent. of the relevant share capital is held by—

(i) a person who is not a British subject entitled to residence in the united kingdom, or
(ii) a company in respect of which a majority of the relevant share capital is held by a person or persons who are not British subjects entitled to residence in the United Kingdom, or

(b) which is a subsidiary of a company which would be caught by paragraph (a) above, or
(c) which does not fall within paragraph (a) or (b) above, but which nevertheless appears to the Secretary of State to be under the effective control of a person or a company defined in paragraph (a) (i) or (ii) above,

and if paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) above apply to a contractor at any time, then any arrangements made by the Secretary of State with that contractor shall be terminated forthwith, any contract between the Secretary of State and that contractor shall be void forthwith, and no compensation shall be payable to a contractor on account of such termination or voiding.'.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 10, in page 2, line 21, at end insert
'relevant share capital" means the company's issued share capital of a class carrying rights to vote, and as further defined in section 198(2) of the Companies Act 1985; and a percentage holding of such relevant share capital shall be calculated as set out in section 200 of that Act.'.

Mr. Rogers: This group of amendments deals with the ownership of the companies involved in the privatisation. ownership was and is a matter of great concern and we discussed it a number of times in Committee. The Opposition hope to convince the Government of the foolishness of their proposals. We want to ensure that any contract made between the Secretary of State and a contractor would contain a proviso in relation to any transfer to a person or persons not in the United Kingdom of any shares in such a company, so that if a transfer took place, it would be notified to the Secretary of State. in addition, we wanted to ensure that, where the transfer exceeded 5 per cent. of the income or value of the total share capital of such a company, the Secretary of State should terminate the contract.
Obviously, ownership is a major security worry. it would be of great concern if the company running the AWE were owned or controlled from overseas. There is nothing in the Bill, and we have received no assurances


about this from the Government, stating that the contract must provide that the ownership of the production of nuclear warheads at Aldermaston, Burghfield, Foulness and Cardiff should not be in the hands of a foreign company or that there should be no foreign nationals working there.
Concern on this issue was expressed not merely by Opposition Members. Conservative Members, in particular the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell), voiced deep fears. The hon. Gentleman mentioned security, and said:
secondly, the protection of the national interest, in that secrets which are involved in the high technology production of atomic weapons should not be penetrated by any outside commercial or foreign power interests."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 31 January 1991; c. 77.]
Earlier in Committee, the Opposition had moved an amendment in an attempt to ensure that legitimate national interests could be protected against the vagaries of the stock market and money lenders. Although we pressed it hard, the Government rejected the amendment and the reasoning behind it—that, in the exceptional sphere of arms production, it was necessary to maintain not only accountability to Parliament, but domestic ownership of the companies involved in production.
In the third sitting of the Committee, the Minister stated in response to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell):
I accept that share ownership details must be spelt out in the contract. It would be possible to set out in the contract who should own the shares and how many and provide for the Ministry of Defence to give prior written consent to any changes of ownership and shareholding. That would cover any takeover of the contracting company, and I guarantee that such a provision will be made in the AWE contract when it is drafted. That will meet the Committee's fears on that score."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 31 January 1991; c. 85.]
It is significant that there was no mention of a special share in either that quote or anywhere else in the Minister's answer. Obviously, there was no intention at that time to introduce the concept of a special share.
Even that statement by the Minister was unsound. The Government will not have any control over the purchase or sale of shares in the contracting company in which the Minister will have a special share because that special share is in the employing company. The contracting companies are Hunting Engineering, Brown and Root and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, so how can the Minister have a special share in those companies? The only place where he can have a special share is in the employing company.

Mr. McWilliam: What about the contracting company?

Mr. Rogers: My hon. Friend mentions the contracting company, but the contracting company is Hunting-BRAE. Hunting Engineering, Brown and Root and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority are private companies. The Minister intends to set up another company, which will be the employing company. It will operate within Aldermaston and will be a company with no assets. The Minister says that the Government will have a special share in that company. It will not even be floated on the stock market, so how can the Minister buy a special share? In Committee, in response to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East, the Minister said that it

would be possible to set out in the contract who owned the shares. Perhaps the Minister can tell us the mechanics of a special share.
This is another example of the Government's muddle-headedness over the Bill. They have not thought the matter through. The Minister has an opportunity to put the record right, or will we have long letters later, as we had in Committee, giving the explanation? When we raised matters in Committee, we were often told that the Minister would write, and a day or two later we got lengthy explanations. The trouble is that the Minister is running out of time. He must stop dithering and decide what he will do.
In Committee, we moved an amendment proposing that the Government retain a majority holding in the company so that there could be accountability to Parliament for the production of nuclear warheads. We thought that we had lost that undertaking. Then, after the fourth sitting of the Committee, we had a letter from the Minister saying that the Government would retain a special share. How can they retain a special share in something they do not own? Is the Minister going to create a special share? Perhaps he can satisfy us on that point and say how he will stop shares being sold. If he can explain how he can prevent shares in Brown and Root being sold on the Dallas stock exchange, I will be more than pleased. I was pleased at first sight by what seemed to be a return to sanity, but after closer examination of what the Minister had said, I realised what a sham the announcement was.
The Minister gave reasons in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes). My hon. Friend has asked me to apologise to the House for his absence. His wife had an operation yesterday and he has had to return home. I thank him and all my hon. Friends for their enormous support in Committee. Had my hon. Friend been here today, he would have been speaking from the Front Bench on some of the issues.
In his letter, the Minister said:
The Secretary of State's special share in the employing company will give him certain rights, including the power to prevent the company being dissolved or sold to outside interests. This means that he can ensure that the company will continue indefinitely to fulfil its sole function of acting as the employer of AWE staff.
At one time, the Minister says that he will retain a share to ensure that the company does not fall into foreign ownership, and at another he says that its only function will be to act as the employer of AWE staff. Of course, it will not have shares that can be bought or sold, because it will not be a registered company. There will just be a contract cooked up between the Minister and his friends in big business. The Government have done nothing about control of ownership of the contractor, about foreign ownership or about access by foreign nationals into this most sensitive of defence areas. Those matters were of fundamental importance in our amendments in Committee.
The Minister scoffed when I talked about control of ownership of the contractors and friends of the Conservative party. He should look at where the money comes from to elect him. Millions and millions of pounds are paid by big business to ensure that Conservative Members are elected. Surely the Minister does not think that he has been elected because of his great charm.
5.45 pm
The shares of Hunting and of Brown and Root will be sold on stock markets—the shares of Hunting in London, and the shares of Brown and Root, a wholly owned subsidiary of an American company incorporated in Dallas, on the Dallas and other American stock exchanges, although not in London. Our amendment may be too late, because part of the management control of the production of our nuclear weapons is already in the hands of a foreign company. However, the Minister said that he would not mind Americans being in control. He does not regard Americans as foreign nationals.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: indicated dissent.

Mr. Rose: It is no good the Minister shaking his head. He should know by now that I read Committee proceedings. If he wants me to, I can quote what he said about not objecting to Americans because they are friends of ours. If they turn into enemies, perhaps something will be written into the contract to cover that. Perhaps it will say, "If the Americans become enemies, the contract will be null and void."
In that context, we must remember that an important statutory function of our Atomic Weapons Establishments is to carry out research and development. Such is the production facility that all our basic nuclear research and nuclear secrets may he in the hands of foreign nationals. The special share could not prevent that, and the Minister knows it.
Let me quote from the same letter to my hon. Friend:
I should first say that this special share does not run counter to anything that I said about the ownership of the contractor during the debate on amendment No. 3. We do not intend that the Secretary of State will hold shares in the contractor. The employing company is a separate company, formed by the Secretary of State solely for the purpose of employing the AWE work force. When a contract is awarded for the operation of AWE, the contractor will be required to acquire the employing company which will thus become a wholly owned subsidiary but only for the duration of the contract. If that contract were to change hands, the employing company would be acquired by the new contractor.
How the special share means that there will be any public accountability, or that the company cannot fall into the control of foreign nationals, is absolutely beyond me.
The ownership of the company is a matter of great concern to Conservative Members, as I mentioned when we were debating the last group of amendments. Compensation and possible litigation in the event of accidents were matters raised in Committee by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East and by my hon. Friends the Members for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). Against whom will there be litigation if there is an accident? Will it be against the company with no assets, which exists only to employ staff, against the foreign-owned company or against the Ministry of Defence, which will be the landlord or janitor, depending on how we want to describe it? Perhaps the Minister can tell the House.
We tabled the amendments because we are concerned about the matter. The problem is that the Government have allowed their party political dogma to shroud the national interest and to prejudice their judgment. They have not thought this through. The experiment is doomed to failure; that is why I hope that hon. Members will support our amendments.

Sir David Mitchell: I agree with the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), to the extent that there is a need to ensure that nuclear secrets remain secrets and that the contractor is United Kingdom-based. However, the amendments go much further than that and pursue an extraordinary course of action. They would have three principal effects. First, they would bar a company in which 10 per cent. or more of the shares are held by a non-United Kingdom citizen from having the contract; secondly, they would ensure that, if 11 per cent. of the shares are owned by a non-United Kingdom citizen, the contract is void; and, thirdly, they would ensure that no compensation will be paid if the contract is made void in such a way. That is different from ensuring that a foreign citizen does not have a majority shareholding, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will resist this group of amendments.
These amendments are especially revealing about the Labour party's attitude in 1991. They exemplify its narrow-minded, anti-foreigner attitude. It is a party prepared to accept the United States's nuclear umbrella but not prepared to allow a 15 per cent. shareholding by a citizen from that country. It would not allow a 15 per cent. minority shareholding by a NATO citizen, or by an Irish national, but it would allow——

Mr. Rogers: Does the hon. Member agree that it also would not allow Saddam Hussein to acquire a 15 per cent. shareholding, in the way that he did with Matrix Churchill and other companies that provided the armaments to kill British soldiers?

Sir David Mitchell: It is perfectly reasonable to ensure that the contractor company does not fall into foreign hands, but that is quite different from saying that no more than 10 per cent. of the shares can be held by any citizen of the various countries that I have described, which are friendly to us in so many ways.
The hon. Member for Rhondda is saying that a CND supporter can have more than 10 per cent. of the shares, but that a citizen of a NATO member country cannot.
I recall that the hon. Gentleman is a former card-carrying member of CND, as was his No. 2 spokesman in Committee. All his CND colleagues would be allowed to hold shares through his amendment, but a staunch supporter of NATO would not be allowed to. That strikes me as a pretty nonsensical amendment to table.

Mr. Rogers: rose——

Sir David Mitchell: I have not finished with the hon. Gentleman yet.
One wonders why the hon. Gentleman takes such a view. Is it because he is desperately anxious to ensure the confidentiality of everything that goes on at Aldermaston?

Mr. Rogers: I assure the hon. Gentleman that, if I bought shares in such a company, it would be as an ex-member of the Welsh Regiment and not as an ex-member of CND.

Sir David Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman does not deny that he is an ex-member of CND—a former card-carrying member—and, if I recall correctly, he said that he was proud of it.
I asked whether the hon. Gentleman was anxious to secure confidentiality in what happens at Aldermaston—I


see that he nods as an indication of his support for that view. Therefore, I shall quote from the Basingstoke Gazette:
A Labour MP leading the fight against bringing in private management at the Atomic Weapons Establishment has asked workers for information about the Aldermaston plant.
Apparently the former card-carrying member of CND went down to Silchester, which is just outside my constituency on the borders of Aldermaston, and asked workers for information about the plant. Now he is tabling an amendment seeking confidentiality.
I quote again from the Basingstoke Gazette:
Mr. Rogers promised confidentiality for information received".
It is a fine kettle of fish for the hon. Gentleman to come here now seeking to protect confidentiality, when he has gone to Aldermaston asking people to give him information about the plant.
The other aspect of this pair of amendments that I find extraordinary is that no compensation will be given to the contractor if it finds that 11 per cent. of its shares are held by any of these offending citizens from America or from NATO countries.
The hon. Gentleman has proposed that, if someone buys additional shares on the stock exchange and so acquires more than 10 per cent. of the shares, which the company has no power to prevent—it cannot control who buys and sells its shares—the contract becomes null and void. Not only that, but no compensation is paid. The shareholders who own nearly 90 per cent. of the shares will lose a valuable contract, with all that that implies, but will receive no compensation. The hon. Gentleman should take his amendment away, because it is rubbish.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I hope that I shall not be disqualified from participating in this debate by virtue of the fact that I have never been a card-carrying member of CND and have never had the honour to serve in the Welsh Regiment; nor am I a regular subscriber to that compelling organ of public opinion, the Basingstoke Gazette.
The amendment seeks to examine—in the context of Report stage—the circumstances in which control of a company which had obtained a contract under section 1(3) of the Bill might raise questions of national importance in the minds of the people of the United Kingdom. It is right and proper that, when one considers the contractorisation of the production and development of weapons of mass destruction, which form a significant part of United Kingdom defence policy and are likely to do so for a long time to come, we should examine with some scruples the extent to which the control of any such company might pass into hands which are not entirely sympathetic to the objectives of the people of the United Kingdom.
That seems an entirely proper issue for the House and the Select Committee to consider. The hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) might have had something to say about the detail of these amendments, but may I respectfully say that he gave scant consideration to the principle behind them, which seems to me to be of considerable importance.
I have re-read the Minister's observations in column 105 of the report of the fourth sitting of the Standing Committee. As I understand it, he said that the special, or golden, share, will apply only to the company formed for the purpose of employing those who will work at

Aldermaston. Apparently there is to be no attempt to create or retain for the Government any similar control in the company which may win the contract. That might raise questions of national importance.
If the shares of a company that won the contract for the production and development of nuclear weapons were to fall into the hands of other companies—or companies formed by national Governments; we know that that is by no means unusual—circumstances might arise in which control of the company at Aldermaston rested with another company or with a nation whose interests were wholly antagonistic to those of the people of the United Kingdom. How could we then guarantee that the company fulfilled the responsibilities placed upon it by the contract? It would be simple for the company to walk away from the contract during its lifetime and to say that it did not want to continue with it.
We should be left—as hon. Members have said—to seek recourse on the Strand to try to compel them to continue with it. In legal terms, that would be extremely difficult, and the Government's remedy would be to try to obtain damages. In the meantime, the production and development of nuclear weapons—which is, and is likely to continue to be, a central part of the United Kingdom's defence strategy—might be brought to an end, prejudiced or dealt with in such a way as to make it difficult for us to maintain an independent nuclear deterrent.
We are dealing with a substantial issue of principle, which we raised with the Minister in Committee. With respect, it seems that, in spite of his courtesy and tact, he did not contrive to deal with it in a way that could be considered intellectually compelling. It is now incumbent on him to explain to the House what remedy he believes that the Government would have in the circumstances that I have outlined. He might be dismissive of the amendments, but he must at least direct his attention to the principle they raise and give us what assurances he can about how the United Kingdom's national interest would be protected in such circumstances.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: If we were to follow the principles outlined by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) to their logical conclusion, we should not buy the missile from America or from General Dynamics, but should make it in this country. We depend on the good will of the Americans for the missiles to carry the Trident warheads. Without that good will, we should not have nuclear missiles.

6 pm

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman is right. Since the Nassau agreement, the United Kingdom has depended on the good will of the United States for the provision of nuclear missiles. Some people regard that as politically acceptable and some do not, but it is a fact. I am concerned that we should have to rely not merely on that good will, about which I am reasonably confident, but on the good will of unknown companies or unknown Governments whose commitment to the same ideals as us might be, to say the least, lukewarm. They may not be members of NATO or share the aspirations of the western alliance; indeed, it might be in their interests to prejudice the production and development of nuclear weapons in the United Kingdom.
The hon. Gentleman's intervention has, if anything, crystallised the argument. It has made even more sharply


the point that the Minister must consider. I hope that the Minister will share with the House his doubtless extensive discussions with colleagues from the Ministry of Defence about how the interests of the United Kingdom can be protected if the contract is won by a company the control of which may pass out of hands that the United Kingdom would regard as entirely friendly.

Mr. McWilliam: I listened carefully, and with some surprise, to the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell). I thought that Senator Joe McCarthy was dead. Clearly, his descendants still exist in some form. He asked, "Are you now or have you ever been …?" If the hon. Gentleman wants to know, yes, I was a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and I probably still am. I do not know. If not, I should be sorry because I should like to vote against some of its policies. One of the reasons for staying in an organisation is to change its policies.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Like the Labour party.

Mr. McWilliam: Yes, like the Labour party. We are members of all sorts of organisations, not because we agree with all of their policies—although we agree with most of them—but so that we have the right to change things.
The hon. Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) was right—I have been around Aldermaston. I probably have a higher security clearance than he has. That is not something to worry about.
I worry about what the application of section 1 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 to the selling of secrets about atomic production to a foreign national. There is an ugly word for that—treason. The Act does not differentiate between selling to a country that is friendly or unfriendly. It applies only to the passing of information.
Our nuclear programme was founded on American technology and on American transfers of information, but it has come a long way since then, and it is not based on that technology or on those transfers now. Much of the research on which it was based was carried out in this country, so there is plenty of room for co-operation.
The hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West asked whether we should allow one of our NATO allies to acquire shares. I should be extremely worried it, for example, the Belgian company that refused to fill our 155 mm artillery shells, which we needed for the Gulf', was allowed to acquire shares. Belgium is a member of NATO, and that company could legitimately acquire shares if we accepted the hon. Gentleman's argument. I do not believe that that company should be allowed to do so.
I realise that the drafting of the amendment is extremely tight, but it has to be. Hunting Engineering is owned by Brown and Root (UK). Brown and Root (UK) is a myth. It is registered in the United Kingdom, but it has no British shareholder, unless those shareholders have acquired shares in the United States as it is an American-owned company. I am not anti-American. I should object; if it were any other company.
In Committee, we pressed the Minister at least to recognise that it was not a good idea to allow foreigners to acquire sufficient control of our atomic weapons production so as to jeopardise it. What is more, we said that it was not a good idea because the more foreign control there was, the more the security of information was compromised. The Minister did not accept those

arguments. I am willing to bet that the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West will not tell his constituents that he fought for the right of foreigners to own shares in Aldermaston. I have news for him. I bet that the Basingstoke Gazette is hanging on my words, and I hope that it uses them.

Sir David Mitchell: My point was that the amendment prescribes 10 per cent. as the barred level—so to speak—which seems ridiculous. Surely there can be no objection to a minority shareholding. There is an objection to a majority shareholding, which is why the Minister has introduced the golden share. That is different from the minority of 10 per cent.

Mr. McWilliam: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention, because it makes it clear to me that he has not even begun to comprehend what the debate is about. It is not about the niceties of who owns a company that makes ping-pong balls. If it were, I should leave the hon. Gentleman and his friends in the City to carry on—as they have since time immemorial—doing what they like. I am pleased that for the moment at least, such manipulation does not apply to the Atomic Weapons Establishment, but it will unless the amendment, or something similar, is adopted. We must prevent some of the things that happen in the City happening in the interesting area of protection.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) spoke about the Minister's letter about the golden share. I recall reading a newspaper during the Easter recess. Something in that letter triggered my memory, and I am reminded to ask the Minister a question. Which of the members of his private office is a medium, because I am convinced that Lewis Carroll wrote that letter?

Mr. Bob Cryer: I listened to the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) with a good deal of interest. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) said, the hon. Gentleman sought to make membership of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament some sort of criminal offence. I remind the House that 139 states are in effect members of an international campaign for nuclear disarmament. Perhaps the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West would like to turn his attention to them and make similar sneering remarks about other NATO countries such as Norway and Denmark which refuse to have nuclear weapons on their soil. The Canadian Government, which is under Conservative control, also refuse to have nuclear weapons on their soil.
The Government of Canada and the Governments of 139 non-nuclear countries share the views of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. They believe that it is sane and sensible not to have nuclear weapons on their soil. I should be interested to know whether any Conservative Members here today wish to persuade any of those 139 countries to take nuclear weapons into their possession. I should be interested to receive any. recommendations to that effect.
Of course those countries will not take nuclear weapons. They know that the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty is an important treaty to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. Who can deny the assertion that, if nuclear weapons spread to other countries, there will be a greater danger of them being used? The rationale behind the amendment is that, because the weapons manufactured at the AWE are the most dangerous on earth, there should be some control by the Government.
The Government wish to continue the policy—with which I disagree—of manufacturing nuclear weapons here in the United Kingdom. We cannot provide absolute prevention of foreign domination through legislation, but we can try. It seems to me that 10 per cent. is not an unreasonable limit on any shareholding. For example, if Saddam Hussein's front men had 10 per cent. of a company—Nuclear Weapons Manufacturing (Basingstoke) Ltd., for instance—the Tories would be slavering at the jaws and saying how dangerous it was that this Hitler-like person had obtained 10 per cent. of the company.

Mr. Rogers: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Cryer: I shall continue with my remarks, if I may.
The danger of someone like Saddam Hussein gaining more than 10 per cent. of such a company is one of the important reasons for the 10 per cent. limit. I shall come to Matrix Churchill in a moment, if that is what my hon. Friend has in mind.
The 10 per cent. limit is also a safeguard against the shifting sands of other Government's policies. We all remember less than a year ago the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, not attacking Saddam Hussein as a potential tyrant, but attending a garden party organised by the Iraqi embassy at which he encouraged our manufacturing industry to sell equipment—weapons were embargoed during the Iran-Iraq war—to the Iraqis. That was why a perfectly good manufacturing company in the machine tool sector—Matrix Churchill—was bought up without the Government raising an eyebrow.
Why did they not raise an eybrow? It was because their ideology is that capital should be free; there should be no impediments on it. It should move between countries, gaining its 5, 10 or 15 per cent. return as profit. Therefore, they believed that it was wrong and arbitary for a Government to intercede between the capitalist and the object of his investment. Lying beneath their policy is the ideology expressed time and again by people who are still in the Government.
The present Minister is a perfectly polite and pleasant man, although he has wrapped a shroud around some nasty policies. However, he may not be in his job for long and some free-booting free-market Minister may be put in his place who might not treat the safeguards so conscientiously as the present Minister does.
6.15 pm
The hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West was saying succinctly that the rights of capital are superior to the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Let me deal with another argument that he used. He suggested that the Labour party was anti-foreigner because Labour Members wished to exclude foreigners from ownership of the company. I am one of the those people who do not like pointing nuclear weapons at foreigners. By and large, nuclear weapons are pointed at foreigners. The hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West is prepared to point a whole range of nuclear weapons at foreigners, so that on the scale of concern and affection for foreigners I rank higher than the hon. Gentleman. I am not prepared to exterminate foreigners on a greater scale than civilisation has ever achieved.
I remind the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West that when we were friendly—when I say "we", I mean the Government——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to refer his remarks to the amendment. They are rather too general at present.

Mr. Cryer: My remarks deal with an amendment which is designed to protect against the purchase of an important contracting company by foreign owners through the penetration of foreign capital in a highly sensitive area—the manufacture of the most dangerous weapons that mankind has, sadly, discovered.
The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) suggests that there are grave dangers in not including some legislative provision other than a golden share. We have often heard Ministers make the case for retaining a golden share in a company. One by one, Ministers have come to the Dispatch Box and told the House that the Government intended to get rid of the golden share. They did so in the case of Jaguar Cars, which was supposed to be an important pinnacle of British manufacturing industry.
There are other considerations. One is the nature of this area of manufacturing. That is why I am pointing out, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we had friendly relations with Iraq not long ago. Matrix Churchill was bought up under the eye of the Government to export good quality machinery for manufacturing weaponry. Some people understood that. I want to demonstrate that, even with this legislation there cannot be an absolute guarantee of protection. All we can do is to seek to influence behaviour and make it conform with the aim and spirit of the Bill.
The perfectly decent firm of Sheffield Forgemasters was involved in the manufacture of a super-gun which the Department of Trade and Industry could not recognise. The Department could not recognise a super-gun if it was sprayed on its eyeballs. Yet we are to depend on the Government. If the gun had been assembled outside the DTI on Victoria street, the civil servants would have looked at it and said, "What a super piece of oil piping." It took the Iraqi civil service to tell them that the oil piping was more expensive and of a higher standard that the average bit of scaffolding, which was what the DTI thought it was.

Mr. Rogers: My hon. Friend talks about companies being encouraged to export to Iraq materials that could be used for the production of armaments. International Military Services, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Ministry of Defence, actively encouraged Astra to purchase PRV of Belgium, which produced the propellant for the big gun, so that it could export the propellant to Iraq, or siphon it through Jordan into Iraq. Of course, this country's main producer of the propellant is Royal Ordnance plc, which was handed over to British Aerospace. Even the present Government would have looked a little sad if they had encouraged Royal Ordnance to supply the propellant for the big gun. However, they certainly encouraged Astra to purchase PRV so that it could do so. So far as this business is concerned, the Government's hands are very dirty indeed.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend makes an apt point.
If the amendment were accepted, breach of the legislation would preclude compensation. Its purpose is to


encourage greater scrutiny by the people operating this company. They would realise that, if they did not exercise scrutiny, their pockets would be hurt. I am afraid that one of the traits of some sections of humanity is that, in the absence of a prod of that nature, they turn a blind eye, especially when they get no guidance from a supine and inert Government willing to sell pretty well anything at any time to anybody anywhere, so long as the people who contribute to Tory party funds make a fast buck. That may seem a little crude, but it is the reality, even if the Government try to avoid it with grand words.
At Question Time today, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said that he supported the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. As I said at the beginning of my speech, the 139 non-nuclear signatories to the NPT want some assurance. They get no assurance from this country, as it is embarking on the manufacture of Trident nuclear weapons. That is what this legislation is about. I do not want people to be put on the dole; I want expertise and skills in this field to be transferred to projects that would preserve and benefit life instead of having the potential to destroy it.
I certainly want to see the end of the manufacture of Trident nuclear weapons in the United Kingdom. As a matter of fact, so do those 139 non-nuclear nations. They keep telling us that it is unfair that the nuclear signatories, including the United States and the Soviet Union, should be negotiating some reduction—as they have been, through the INF treaty—while the United Kingdom does nothing of the sort. In review conferences, they keep asking, "Why should we get rid of nuclear weapons, and refuse to manufacture or deploy them, when the United Kingdom sets no example at all?"

Sir Anthony Durant: I have been following very closely the hon. Gentleman's remarks about atomic weapons throughout the world. Does he advocate the closure of Aldermaston?

Mr. Cryer: I thought I had made it absolutely clear that I should like to see the Aldermaston expertise and skills used in the development of materials and equipment for the preservation and development of life. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that getting rid of nuclear weapons would necessarily result in many people being put on the dole, he is mistaken. We can—indeed, we must—plan the change. It is the absence of planning that has resulted in so much redundancy following the so-called peace dividend.
I want to return to the detail of the clause. The 139 non-nuclear nations to which I have referred are not impressed by the record of the present and previous Conservative Governments, who have spent £10,000 million on Trident nuclear weapons. If they see the manufacture of nuclear warheads handed over in a sloppy manner to private contractors, who, with regard to proliferation, may be subject to rather less Government control, they will be even less impressed.
If the Government are to continue this manufacture, which I steadfastly oppose, and if they are to continue with this legislation, as I have no doubt they are, even though I steadfastly oppose and deplore it, we should at least have some safeguards. Perhaps one day the Minister will get a trip to Canada under Government auspices. If that should happen, would he not want to be able to say, "We are providing every possible safeguard"? If the people there said, "But Labour put forward some decent safeguards,

and you rejected them," he would have a perfectly reasonable answer. He would be able to say that the safeguards had been rejected in the Commons but would be accepted in the Lords.
I dare say that all legislation is flawed to some degree. However, the Minister should be in a position to say that the House of Commons at least tried to provide some control over the manufacture of weapons capable of causing more death, more destruction and more lingering horror than occurred in the whole of the Gulf war and the subsequent Kurdish crisis. These are important safeguards, and I ask the Minister to accept the amendment.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I regret that I was unable to be present for the debate on the first group of amendments. I was attending a meeting of the Select Committee on Defence, which was considering the threatened closure of the Rosyth naval base. Having been a member of the Standing Committee that considered this Bill, I am glad to be able to contribute at this stage.
It is with a feeling of unreality that we see the Government, in their dying weeks—we hope that these are their dying weeks—introducing legislation to commit the ultimate folly of privatisating the manufacture of nuclear weapons, having privatised almost everything else. In these circumstances, we can always depend on the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) to extend the unreality. He has certainly done so today. Evidently, he is prepared to go to the wall for the rights of any number of foreigners—people from Iraq, Argentina, the Soviet Union, or anywhere else—to purchase any number of shares in the operating company of the Atomic Weapons Establishment. The hon. Gentleman's party regards itself as the party of patriotism. It is the party that wraps itself in the flag.

Sir David Mitchell: I understand the reasons for the hon. Gentleman's absence from the earlier debate. He must have been still absent when I made my speech, as I did not make the suggestion that he has just put into my mouth.

Mr. Home Robertson: I was present, and I listened very closely to the hon. Gentleman's interesting speech. He was at great pains to make clear what he felt about friendly foreigners. But there is nothing in the Bill about friendly foreigners; there are no restrictions. Share ownership in the operating company will be open to anybody. Evidently, the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is a good thing that people from any country should be able to purchase shares. Plainly that is unreasonable, irrational and dangerous. There should be restrictions. Perhaps the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West, giving due consideration to national interests as well as local interests, will table a manuscript amendment putting foreigners into different categories. So far, he has not done so. He is prepared to go to the wall in support of the case that any foreigner should be allowed to buy any number of shares in the operating company.

Sir David Mitchell: That is not what I said.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: So long as that person is not a member of CND.

Mr. Home Robertson: Yes, so long as he is not, and has never been, a member of CND, and has no relationship with it.

Mr. McWilliam: Or the Welsh Regiment.

Mr. Home Robertson: Or the Welsh Regiment, or the Fife and Forfar Yeomanry, or the Durham Light Infantry.
In the next part of his extraordinary contribution, the hon. Gentleman suggested that there was something seditious about the trip of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), who led for the Opposition in the Standing Committee, to Aldermaston to try to get some perfectly relevant, openly available information about the way in which Hunting-BRAE was conducting its affairs at the time leading up to the introduction of this legislation.
As ever, the Government have jumped the gun about privatising the Atomic Weapons Establishment and Hunting-BRAE is already involved. I put it to the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West that it was entirely proper for my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda to find out relevant information in anticipation of the proceedings in Committee and debates in the House. It was equally proper for employees at Aldermaston to brief hon. Members on both sides of the House and tell us what was going on there, how inefficient it was and how they had managed to lose an entire day's production because of the way in which they were conducting their affairs.
6.30 pm
On reflection, the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West should acknowledge that his outburst was unjustified and disgraceful, and hon. Members on both sides of the House should acknowledge that the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda on behalf of the Opposition is the correct and patriotic way to proceed with the legislation.
I personally feel that the whole Bill should be thrown out. I find it quite bizarre that we are talking about privatising the operation of the Atomic Weapons Establishment. Certainly there must be safeguards as to who can own shares in that company in future. We heard from the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West on behalf of the unreconstructed Thatcherite Tory party that absolutely everything is up for grabs and that anything can be solved. The Tories would even sell their grannies. They would sell the Atomic Weapons Establishment to anyone, including Saddam Hussein. That is irresponsible, and that is why the amendment should be accepted.

Mr. Haynes: The Government are privatisation-barmy. There is no doubt about that, but this time they have gone over the top. Here they are privatising the establishment that is responsible for the manufacture of nuclear warheads. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, where are the Government going? The things that they are flaming well doing are clearly barmy. We are now discussing the foreign ownership of British companies.
The Minister was warned in Committee, but he did not respond in the way we wanted about the foreign ownership of the four establishments. What are the Government doing? They privatised gas, oil and electricity, but the privatisation of the Atomic Weapons Establishment is a different ball game.
Mention has been made of Saddam Hussein. The Ministry of Defence let him get away with murder when it came to weapons. The Government did not do a damn

thing. The Iraqis had pilots in the air in the Gulf war, and we damn well trained them. That is another point about foreign nationals. Now the Government are saying that those foreign nationals can come and buy shares in the Atomic Weapons Establishment. Never mind the percentage—the principle is rotten. I hope that the Minister has listened to all the speeches about foreign ownership of the AWE. The Minister is getting a bit eager. I have not finished yet. I have just opened my notes.
I am worried because we are discussing the Ministry of Defence. I ask the House to concentrate on the cock-up that the Ministry of Defence and the Government have made of military establishments. We are talking about the AWE. Saddam Hussein has been mentioned; we should not forget Colonel Gaddafi. I have spoken to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown), who is a great friend of Gaddafi. He goes to see him from time to time, and he tries to badger him into helping to release the hostages.
What about Gaddafi buying into the AWE? After all, Saddam Hussein was supposed to be a friend of Britain and the Government encouraged him in all manner of things. Now the Government are leaving it wide open for Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi and other nasty dictators throughout the world to buy into the AWE. While I gather my thoughts, I shall give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. McWilliam: While my hon. Friend gathers his thoughts, he might recollect that, as far as I am aware, the Libyan Government own shares in the Agusta aircraft company, which is the part-manufacturer of the EH101 anti-submarine helicopter that is being developed for the Royal Navy.

Mr. Haynes: We have another voice of experience from the Select Committee on Defence. My hon. Friends know a lot more than I do about defence because of their experience on that Select Committee. I am not a member of it, so they are way out in front of me, but I can see real dangers in the Bill resulting from foreign ownership of the establishment that manufactures wicked and dangerous weapons.
In Standing Committee, we asked questions about security. We gave the Government a right going over, and we were not satisfied with the Minister's response. If they allow foreign nationals to buy into the Atomic Weapons Establishment, they will have a hell of a job with security and policing. I want to know whether they will build up the manpower when foreign nationals have bought into the establishment.

Mr. George Howarth: Which manpower?

Mr. Haynes: The manpower involved in security. The numbers employed in security at military establishments are dipping all the time. The end result is that they are using people who have just got out of prison to do security work.
Security at military establishments is the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence. I want to stress the cock-up that the Government have made of that, but we are discussing something quite different—the manufacture of nuclear warheads. The Ministry of Defence will be responsible for the security of the establishment. If foreign nationals will be able to buy into the AWE, we must do something about the security system there. The Minister


would not answer our questions in Committee. The things that are happening under the present Administration are quite appalling.
I can tell the Minister that my constituents are not too pleased with the Bill. I go round to the British Legion club. Those boys were prepared to give their lives for our nation. They are concerned about what the Government are doing in the Atomic Weapons Establishment Bill.
There is another question that was not answered in Committee. If foreign nationals bought into the privatised AWE, how many jobs would be lost? Every time the Government have privatised an industry, jobs have gone—hosts of them.
If such companies do not make enough money, more and more jobs go. If the companies start to lose money someone else must buy in. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said, if that happens in this case, who knows who will buy in? The Government will dilly-dally and dither all over the damn place in the hope that someone will come along and snap up the AWE quickly. They will not study who those people are, or who they represent. The Government have shot off in this direction and have not listened to the Opposition's suggestions. We have told them the things that could go wrong.
I believe that the Government should dither on this issue so that it is studied properly. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) made particular reference to the need to look at this matter properly. The Government should not rush head on. The Government dither on some things, but they rush like silly beggars on others.
The Minister may think that this is a big joke, but it is a serious matter. In Committee I talked about his baby. He has a lovely baby.

Mr. Home Robertson: Has he?

Mr. Haynes: Oh, aye. That baby was also a serious matter and the Minister could laugh about that, because it was a happy event. I look forward to the next happy event, but he should think seriously about the problems we have described tonight. I hope that the Under-Secretary will convince the Secretary of State. It is no good talking to the Minister of State; he was not a member of the Committee, and today he ducked in here for about two minutes. Oh—I see that he has just returned. I did not notice him by the Chair, but now he is here to listen to the back end of my speech. He has missed all the others and all the serious issues that were raised.
It seems that all the sheep on the Conservative Benches will follow the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary, just like they followed them on the poll tax. They have had to back off on that, because they got their backsides kicked in their constituencies. I want their backsides to be kicked about this Bill, because, as soon as the electorate wake up to the effects of this privatisation, they will tell Conservative Members in no uncertain terms to back off, just like they did on the poll tax.
After the next election, we shall act at the first opportunity to get rid of the Bill. We shall follow the proposals advocated by my hon. Friends.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: I have no quarrel with the basic principle behind the amendment, which is to protect United Kingdom national security interests. There are, however, other ways in which to do that than by including

in legislation a requirement limiting the percentage of foreign ownership in the contracting company. The Opposition's suggestion does not represent the most effective way in which to secure full security. We believe that this issue is best tackled through the contract and other means, not through the Bill.
I should remind the Opposition, as I did in Committee, that protecting national security is the job of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—it is his central role. He does not need a statutory obligation to ensure that he does his job. He would never hand over the running of the AWE to foreign control.
I should also remind the House that the Government are retaining ownership of all the property, assets and equipment at the AWE. We are only contractorising the management.

Mr. Rogers: The Minister says that he will prevent foreign ownership through the contract. We are simply asking him to tell us how.

Mr. Carlisle: If the hon. Gentleman is patient, I shall outline how we will ensure security. I should be happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman again later.
It may be for the benefit of the House if I outline how we shall ensure that the Government retain influence over ownership of the companies involved in the operation of the AWE. I say "companies" because we intend to adopt for the AWE the two-company structure of an employing company and a contracting company. That was the arrangement we followed when contractor operation was introduced into our royal dockyards. It is therefore a well-proven arrangement, and itself provides important safeguards.
6.45 pm
Our intention is that, shortly before vesting day, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will form the employing company for the purpose of employing the AWE's staff. As I have said, this will be a different company from the contracting company, which will be the private sector company or consortium that wins the competition for full contractor operation of the AWE.
As part of the contract, the contractor will take over ownership of the employing company from my right hon. Friend. The purpose of the employing company will still be to act as employer of the AWE staff. However, for the duration of the operating contract, the employing company will be wholly owned by the contractor, with the important exception of a single special share which will be retained by my right hon. Friend. That will provide important safeguards.
The two-company structure and the special share in the employing company will benefit the staff by providing continuity of employment. If, after about five to seven years, a further competition is held and another contractor is appointed to run AWE on our behalf, that firm will be required to take over the employing company from the original contractor. Staff will remain employees of the same employing company.
Similarly, if, for any reason, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wished to operate the AWE himself, or if we were unhappy with the contractor, the two-company structure and the special share would enable him to take back the employing company and thus the entire staff of AWE under direct Government control. That is an important safeguard for the Government, as, if necessary,


we could revert to operating the AWE ourselves. I believe that that answers the particular concern expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell).
Given the safeguards provided by the two-company structure and the special share, I regard it as neither necessary nor right to seek to legislate on possible foreign shareholdings in the contracting company. The ownership question, which is linked with wider security issues, is better covered at the tender and contract stages.
We have made it very clear that we shall ensure that the choice of contractor and the terms of the contract take full account of all security considerations. The contractor must comply fully with our security requirements, including satisfying my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about its ownership. I stress that we shall be looking for a United Kingdom-based prime contractor, who can comply with those requirements. We shall ensure that the ownership of the contracting company, whether or not it is owned by a consortium, is not prejudicial to our defence interests. I stress that we shall be most careful about that, but I reiterate that it is not a matter appropriate to legislation. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) put that argument convincingly.
We will also take measures to ensure that, once the contract has been let, there is no possibility of national security considerations being compromised through shares changing hands. I repeat the guarantee that I gave in Committee—all the requirements to protect security and ensure that the contractor fulfils security criteria will be written firmly into the contract.
I regard this as a matter for the contract rather than legislation, because, irrespective of any foreign shareholdings, there may be United Kingdom companies or individuals who would not meet our high security standards and whom we would find unacceptable as our operating contractor at AWE. That is why it is important that our security criteria are strictly applied both in the award, and during the term, of the contract. A restriction in the Bill defining an acceptable level of foreign ownership would, by itself, be insufficient adequately to protect national security. We need the whole strength of our ability to enforce security, not just a restriction set down in the Bill.
Conversely, AWE experts have always co-operated closely with their counterparts in the United States and will no doubt continue to do so. I cannot accept, for example, that there is any objection in principle to a degree of involvement from companies based in the United States. As everyone will know, and as has been mentioned in debate, our nuclear links with the Americans are close and valued, and have been so valued by Governments of all parties.
As the amendment is designed, albeit unacceptably, to protect national security, I should take this opportunity of reiterating the Government's commitment to maintaining the very highest standards of security at AWE. Those standards will be not only applied in our selection of contractor, as I have already mentioned, but also written in detail into the contract so that the contractor is under no doubt about the high standards that he must meet. In addition, every employee of the contractor, and any parent company, who has access to AWE information or sites will be rigorously vetted by the Ministry of Defence and will meet our high standards.
The contractor will also be required to comply with our "need to know" principle which restricts the dissemination of classified information—a well recognised and widely used principle. Any individual who breaks security rules will risk losing his or her security clearance and could be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act. In the event that the operating company was itself implicated in those theoretical events, sanctions will be available under the contract which could, as a last resort, culminate in terminating the contract. I must repeat that, if the Secretary of State is truly worried about national security, he has full power to rescind the contract and to take the employing company back into his full ownership.
In conclusion, the Government are committed to maintaining the highest security standards at AWE. This includes the question of foreign ownership, although that is but one aspect in our overall security requirements. Coupled with the safeguards provided by the two-company structure and the special share arrangements in the employing company, it is far more sensible and effective to safeguard security by the careful application of well proven security criteria to those companies who tender for the contract, than by the blunt instrument of statutory provision. I therefore invite the House to reject the amendment.

Mr. Rogers: I still cannot understand what the Minister is on about in relation to retaining a special share. He has said in his letter that he is setting up a company that will be solely an employing company; it will have no function other than to employ people. There will then be a quite separate contracting company. At present, on phase 1, that will be a consortium of Hunting Engineering, Brown and Root, an American company, and the Atomic Energy Authority.
The special share will stop no one from purchasing shares in the contracting company. Anyone who has the money to purchase them on the London stock exchange, or the Dallas stock exchange in relation to Brown and Root, will be able to do so. The present 22 managers are employed by Hunting Engineering, Brown and Root and the Atomic Energy Authority. Is the Minister saying that the special share in the employing company will stop Brown and Root and Hunting Engineering trading on the stock exchange?
I cannot see what the function of the special share is, except that it will prevent any transfer of that company to anyone else and so will secure the jobs of the people who are working there, something which I applaud. It cannot secure who works there in the first place.

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman is worried about the transfer of shares in the contracting company. We can well write into a contract that the Secretary of State would have to be advised about the transfer of shares from a contracting company, and then the share in the second employing company, the special share, comes in. If, for security reasons, the Secretary of State disliked that transfer of shares and was determined to stop it but the transfer went ahead and the Secretary of State believed that that was not in the interests of national security, that special share in the employing company would enable him to cancel the contract and take back the employing company into his own ownership, and thereby take over the running of AWE himself. That is the final fallback, and it is foolproof.

Mr. Rogers: It is incredible. The Minister says that he can write into a contract with a company the fact that its shares cannot be free traded on the stock exchange, or at least, if they are, that the Government must be notified before or after. If a company does that, the Minister's only response will be to cancel the contract. The company will be right in the middle of producing warheads for Trident. As the hon. arid learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said, the Government will end up in the law courts in the Strand. I have never heard anything so ill-conceived in my life.
Surely to goodness the Minister understands that a special share in an employing company, which in his own words is set up solely to employ people, will have nothing to do with controlling the management of Aldermaston. The Minister is setting up this structure to bring in outside management because, as he says, the Ministry of Defence is not good enough to run the place. He has said time and time again, "We do not have the expertise. We have got to go outside and privatise." Then straight away he says, "Ah, but we are going to set up this structure." The Minister is talking nonsense and the structure that he is proposing is ill-founded.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) described the contribution of the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) as disgraceful. As it was an attack on me, I will leave the hon. Gentleman to live with his own conscience. Our amendments would prevent the proliferation of the technology and the expertise that are required for the production of nuclear weapons. Surely to goodness Conservative Members are not saying that they want an open seam for the production of nuclear weapons, especially after the Gulf war. Not even the Prime Minister believes in that.
Only yesterday, the Prime Minister suggested that there should be an arms register. That happens to be about five years after the Labour party suggested it. Like his safe haven policy it is a little late—plagiarism yet again. We do not mind him copying our policies—that is why we advocate them—but an arms register is a step along the path of non-proliferation and we applaud it.
We are glad that Conservative Members have come over to our way of thinking. Why not extend the idea to Aldermaston—[Interruption.] The Minister of State for Defence Procurement is muttering again, but as a military historian he should realise the sense of my argument—even though he never bothered to attend Committee to listen to it because he was too busy, as I said before, with his antique cars. He should have attended our debates and carried out his responsibilities as the Minister for Defence Procurement.
7 pm
The hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West mentioned my former membership of CND. Sometimes people change their opinions in the light of new circumstances. The hon. Gentleman may be somewhat neanderthal in his views but some of us are a little more flexible. He suggested that my position as a Member of Parliament was unsound because I was a former member of CND. I know that Conservative Members do not worry about former members of the National Front. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman thinks that his background is more sound than mine. I know that membership of the Welsh Regiment does not count for much—not even with me

—but for what it is worth, I was a national service man. I am not sure where the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West served, but he can take my membership of CND and the Welsh Regiment as he likes.
If I had really wanted to be unsound, I would have been better off going to a public school, since one of the qualifications for membership of the long list of traitors to this country is membership of the Conservative party or attendance at public school. I do not know of many steel workers or miners who have sold secrets to the Russians, but I am sure that quite a few former university and public school boys who may have been friends of Conservative Members or even of the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West probably sold out to the Russians. The Tory party sold out to the Nazis before the war; it collaborated with them throughout the 1930s and claimed that Hitler was a wonderful man. So Conservative Members should not point the finger at us and call us unsound or traitors. They should look among their own ranks, where they will find a viper's nest. If anyone knows about loyalty in the Conservative party, it is the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher).
These were probing amendments to which we have received no response. It appears that we are not going to get the Minister to change his mind, so we shall not press them to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule

APPLICATION OF CERTAIN ENACTMENTS

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 4, line 27, at end insert—
'Radioactive Substances Act 1960 (c. 34)
4A.—(l) For the purposes of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960, so far as relating to authorisations required under section 6(1) of that Act for the disposal of radioactive waste, a relevant site in designated premises shall be treated as a site in respect of which a nuclear site licence is for the time being in force.
(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above, "relevant site" means a site used by a contractor for the purposes of any activity which would, if section I of the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 applied in relation to the site, require a nuclear site licence.'.
This is a technical amendment. Under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960, there are two different regimes for authorising the disposal of radioactive waste. Nuclear power stations and other major nuclear sites which are subject to licensing under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 are regulated jointly by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Other sites which dispose of much smaller quantities of radioactive material are regulated by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution alone.
AWE is currently exempt from both Acts, although both HMIP and MAFF fulfil a quasi-regulatory role at AWE sites by administrative arrangement.
Under the Bill as amended in Committee, AWE will remain exempt from the licensing provisions of the Nuclear Installations Act but will become subject to the Radioactive Substances Act. A consequence is that, although HMIP will acquire a statutory role in authorising disposals of radioactive waste at AWE, MAFF will not, as none of the AWE sites will be licensed under the Nuclear Installations Act.
After discussion with MAFF, we have decided that it would be appropriate for MAFF to have a statutory role in authorising radioactive discharges at those AWE sites—Aldermaston and Burghfield—which would be subject to licensing under the Nuclear Installations Act were it not for the exemption provided in paragraph 5 of the schedule to this Bill. The amendment which we are now discussing has been drafted to achieve that purpose. Although it appears in the schedule, it does not confer any exemption upon the contractorised AWE; on the contrary, it imposes an extra layer of statutory regulation, and thus an extra environmental safetguard, by giving MAFF a role as well as HMIP. I urge the House to support the amendment.

Mr. McWilliam: I thank the Minister for his explanation. We do not intend to oppose the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I am delighted to move the Third Reading of this Bill. We have spent some time taking the Bill through Committee and are now approaching a conclusion. I should like to explain the general purpose of the Bill, which is to meet the requirements of the Trident programme.
We believe that the Bill will improve the operation of manufacturing at AWE, thereby guaranteeing as effectively as possible our independent nuclear deterrent. Hon. Members will recall that I have often said that our Trident programme is on time at AWE, but production targets are becoming tighter, and to meet those targets we believe that we must organise manufacturing at AWE as effectively as possible by introducing the expertise of the private sector.
I also stress that we are not privatising AWE. All the property, assets and equipment will remain the property of the Secretary of State for Defence. What we are putting into private hands is AWE's organisation of manufacturing, which can best be carried out by people with the skill and experience that come from organising a manufacturing enterprise.
This is not to cast slurs on the abilities of the people at AWE, for whose qualities we have the highest regard. They are among the most skilled in their sphere in the world, and they are dedicated to helping us to secure our deterrent. We believe, however, that efficient manufacturing is best achieved by those with experience of manufacturing in the private sector. Therefore, the best way forward for AWE is for the operation to be contractorised. The path is already familiar to the House because we took it with the royal dockyards. They, too, have excellent staff, with exceptional skills and knowledge. It is fair to recognise, none the less, that the talents of the AWE work force do not lie primarily in areas of manufacturing.
Various serious concerns have been expressed by my hon. Friends who have constituency interests and by Opposition Members during many debates on the Floor of the House and in Committee. I am confident that the fears have been met.
There have been fundamental fears, for example, about security. I have often said that the Secretary of State is the

ultimate guarantor for security. He can ensure in a number of ways that there is proper security, and we went into those in detail on Report. If the Secretary of State is worried about security, his special shares in the employing company provide him with the ultimate sanction of cancelling the contract and taking back the employing company. We do not expect that to happen, because there are several steps that could be taken before the ultimate sanctions were employed. As I have said, the ultimate sanction rests with the Secretary of State in the interests of the state's security.
The House has been greatly concerned with safety. The Government are obviously extremely concerned about safety and accept that it is of paramount importance. I think that I have satisfied the House that all the existing safeguards will remain. Again, the Secretary of State is ultimately responsible for safety. Several extra safeguards have been introduced. Safety will be written deeply into the contract, and the contractor, will have an incentive to ensure that safety is of the highest level. He will suffer under the terms of the contract if he does not fulfil his obligations to ensure the proper level of safety.

Sir Anthony Durant: I apologise for not being in my place when there was reference to the escape of tritium. There is no doubt that there is concern about it. Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that he will talk to the establishment in advance of contractorisation to ensure that everything is secure? There are anxieties now, and I hope that my hon. Friend will go to the site and talk to those concerned about current safety.

Mr. Carlisle: I know that my hon. Friend has been worried about a tiny leak of tritium. I can confirm that there was an extremely small leak on 19 February in an area where research was taking place that is not central to the existing operation by Hunting-BRAE, which is concentrated on manufacturing. The regulating authorities were informed. As I have said, the release was extremely minor. No member of the public would have received exposure of more than 1 microSievert. The House will know that members of the public receive every year, on average, more than 2,000 times as much radioactivity as that from natural and background sources.
The leak has been investigated, and we are expecting a report soon. I shall be surprised if we do not accept all the recommendations that are contained in the report. I hope that that will satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) and his constituents.
As I have said, safety will be written into the contract. There will be support from the compliance office that we are setting up. As a last step—this course was not available when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was managing the manufacturing—the contractor could be taken to court.
Some concern has been expressed about terms and conditions. These will be protected by the application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. We have guaranteed that pensions will be as good as they are now, as will terms of redundancy. We do not expect any redundancies so long as we are true to the Trident programme. The order book stretches securely into the future.
Our aim is to secure a nuclear deterrent and to ensure that the manufacturing effort is conducted on time and as efficiently as is possible. We have before us a sensible Bill


that contains strong safeguards to protect national interests and AWE employees. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Rogers: For all the reasons that the Minister has advanced in support of the Bill, we shall vote against it. It is obvious that the measure was conceived out of the Government's incompetence and that their incompetence extended into the drafting of it. On many issues that we discussed on Second Reading and in Committee, we were extremely unhappy. Indeed, both Conservative and Opposition Members expressed reservations about some of the Bill's provisions. The hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) said on one occasion that he supported the Bill in principle, although he did not support some of the details. That seemed a daft approach.
Many of the issues that have been raised this evening were debated in Committee. The more that we examined the Bill the more we were confirmed in our view that the Government are extremely bad at managing the procurement of nuclear warheads and weapons and of defence equipment in general. Our view was confirmed by the Select Committee on Defence. When examining the production of Trident, it became extremely concerned about extensive delays and overruns in cost and in time. It is beyond me to understand how the Minister can say that he is happy with the Trident nuclear programme.
The Select Committee dealt with the Government's feeble attempt to redress the system that prevailed in Aldermaston before bringing in 22 managers at £25 million a year. The Select Committee took the view that the result was different levels of payments to different grades in different ways so as to cause division and dissension, even when more money had been paid. It seemed that employees asked to be returned to a lower grade where they could earn more money.
The Government say that the management of Aldermaston was poor in their hands. I can understand that. Surely it is perverse for the Minister to use his incompetence to justify privatisation. It is because the Government are so poor at doing their job that they have introduced this privatisation measure. The Minister has told us that, if the Government are to meet their nuclear deterrent programme and provide a proper defence for the country, it is essential to privatise the manufacturing section.

Mr. Julian Brazier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rogers: The hon. Member was a member of the Committee that considered the Bill, but he has been absent during today's proceedings until recently. It happens that he worked at Aldermaston. As he was part of the shambles that existed there, he should take some of the blame. Therefore, I shall not give way to him now.
The Minister says that he is not privatising but contractorising. However, as can be seen from column 47 of the Official Report of the Committee proceedings, previously he said that the Government were privatising. It is privatisation, certainly of the intellectual aspects of the production of nuclear warheads and of the production itself. The fact that the Government are retaining the physical aspects of Aldermaston under their control simply means that they are acting as the landlord or the

janitor. We are discussing the production of some of the most fearsome weapons known to mankind. We are concerned about the proliferation of those weapons and the fact that there is no real control over the penetration of the installations by people from other countries. The Bill contains no safeguards to prevent such penetration because the Government have removed civil service status from the people working at that establishment.
I should have liked to talk about a number of aspects at length, but I shall desist because of the pressure of time. In particular, I should have liked to speak of the Government's appalling inefficiency and mismanagement in the construction of the A90 building. Time and again, we have alerted the Government to the problems with the building, not only in its roof, but in the stainless steel tanks that have welding problems and may allow the emission of toxic and radioactive gases into the atmosphere. The building was privately constructed and the work supposedly was carried out to British Nuclear Fuels specifications. Much of the work had to be redone because it was unsafe. Who picked up the bill for all that additional work? It was the taxpayer. That does not fill me with confidence about the Bill's proposals for the production, supervision, safety and ultimate delivery of the finished product.
When I raised those matters in Committee, the Minister dismissed them and said that I was wrong and was scaremongering. He said:
the problems of the capital programme are now firmly in the past. The A90 construction work is now complete. Several hon. Members referred to the problems with the duct work, which was acknowledged to be unsatisfactory. It has now been replaced by suitable materials.… I have seen the A90 building…and it is a very good one.
Installation of the equipment is largely complete and commissioning of the building and equipment are now under way. We shall be able to meet the requirements for production of Trident, and I am pleased to say that the Trident programme is on course to meet its in-service date by the mid-1990s.
There is already two or three years' slippage in the programme. He continued:
An unsatisfactory situation has now been brought up to date through the various steps which we have taken. Work on the building is on time, it will meet the programme and it is safe."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F,19 February 1991; c. 242.]
During the past week, we have seen just how safe it is. Answers from the Secretary of State have also shown that the work is not on time. Perhaps he could tell his Minister that.
Many of the issues that we have not had the opportunity to discuss this evening relate to control, accountability, certain aspects of safety, security, financial control, the general efficiency of the establishment, and other options that have not been considered. I am sure that hon. Members who represented Aldermaston, Burghfield, Cardiff and Foulness would have supported our amendments had they had the opportunity to do so, but they had not because of the Government Whip. I am referring to such matters as funded redundancy to ensure that after, TUPE 1981 plus one day, the work force would have the security that the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West said that he wanted for his constituents. He did not have the gumption to vote for our amendment, but perhaps he will vote with us on Third Reading. At least some of his hon. Friends abstained because they recognised the fundamental flaws in the Bill.
We need to derive into the issue of the contract. It is incredible that, at least two years after the proposition came to the fore, the Minister still cannot tell us what is likely to be in the final contract. For a year, some 22 people from a contractor have been operating under phase 1 of the contract, but we still have no information about the contract. Time and again in Committee, the Minister said that he could not tell us what would be in the contract because he did not know. That was an awful admission. After all this time, he still has no idea of what will be in the contract for the production of nuclear warheads. That is a sad and sorry admission, but it is in line with the clear fact that the Bill has arisen out of the Government's incompetence—an incompetence that has not stopped.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: I have already explained why I was unable to take part in the Second Reading debate and in the Committee proceedings. I am glad that I have sat through the remaining stages and Third Reading. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister, who has shown extraordinary patience despite being sorely provoked by many unreasonable arguments. He answered the points made extraordinary well and comprehensively. I thank him for his answers to my questions.
I well remember going to see Mr. William Rodgers when he was a Minister at the Ministry of Defence. It was a year or two after I had become the Member of Parliament for Newbury. I asked whether I could be shown around what was then called the AWRE at Aldermaston. He was polite, but he said, "Michael, we do not allow Members of Parliament to go around the establishment because of the problem with security clearance. We do not want to get involved in that area, because we are not sure what might arise." Now, many Members of Parliament have been around that establishment, and I like to think that my representations made some difference to the thinking of the Ministry of Defence about opening the establishment to Members of Parliament and the Select Committee.
The Bill is about the contractorisation of the four atomic weapons establishments. Perhaps it is because Aldermaston falls within my constituency that I think that it is the jewel in the crown. Ever since it was a wartime airfield, and then a leading establishment in the nuclear arms programme established by the first Labour Government after the war, it has played a leading role in the defence of our country. I endorse what my hon. Friend the Minister said about its work force. They have given marvellous service to this country. They are extremely skilled. I suspect that the expertise that Lord Penney assembled around him at Aldermaston was the envy of many other establishements throughout the world. Aldermaston has been responsible for Polaris, Chevaline, and now Trident. I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend the Minister say that the Trident programme is on time and will meet the needs of our nation.
I relate that history only to make the point that Aldermaston has existed for four decades. To argue that the management structure that was right in the beginning continues to be right—regardless of the changes in the

nuclear arms industry—is to put one's head in the sand. Indeed, it is no longer called AWRE Aldermaston, but AWE Aldermaston.
We must all be aware of the criticisms of the A90 project and the other difficulties that have arisen as Aldermaston has moved from being a research and development centre to a production centre like Burghfield. Therefore, I entirely endorse the contractorisation proposals in the Bill. The management structure that the Government have chosen is right, as will be shown—as my hon. Friend suggested in his statement—by the Trident programme.
Different management skills are needed now from those that were in place when research and development were predominant. Moreover, despite the fact that some hon. Members found criticisms in the Select Committee's report, its ninth report, published last June, stated that the Atomic Weapons Establishment was suffering from serious problems that required effective remedies. The Select Committee supported the idea of outside management expertise and endorsed the Ministry of Defence's thinking. Bearing in mind the fact that it is an all-party the fact Committee, it made it difficult for the trade unions' wish to maintain the status quo. That seems to be the right approach to the new problems confronting the establishments.
Such action logically leads to the Bill. I recognise that, at this stage of the proceedings, some will continue to be sceptical about the proposals and others who are concerned about future profits, job security, pensions and redundancies within the new structure. However, my hon. Friend the Minister will have reassured them tonight on those points.
The unions are right to ask to be consulted, and I hope that no modern management would ignore their plea. The unions state that the continuing morale and confidence of the work force will be of the greatest importance to the success of the contractorisation, as it will be to future recruitment. I am sure that that is uppermost in the minds of contractors. I also agree with the unions about the need to demonstrate a commitment to the highest levels of safety. It was useful to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister about the role of the compliance officer and his overview of general safety. It is good to know that parliamentary scrutiny will continue and that Ministers will still be accountable to Members of Parliament about safety at Aldermaston. It is also good to know that COMARE will continue to impose inspections when emission problems arise.
The assurances of my hon. Friend the Minister, taken with the objectives of contractorisation, will ensure a new future for Aldermaston and Burghfield. Both establishments have served us well and have a greater chance to serve us even better in the future.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I share the sentiments of the hon. Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) about the apparent inexhaustible patience of the Minister. However, I regret to part company with him when he says that the Minister has been sorely provoked by unconscionable arguments. If there has been provocation, it has arisen because of the Bill, which the Minister has often properly described as very narrow terms. It has been drawn in narrow terms to ensure that the maximum power and responsibility rest with the Executive and that the legislature has little to do with the way in which the


principal proposal in the Bill is implemented. That is a matter of great regret, as is the failure of the Government to accept the compelling argument that the position of the compliance officer and her responsibilities for Atomic Weapons Establishments should have been enshrined in legislation and in express and specific statutory duties.
We are being invited to pass into law a Bill that depends on the Ministry of Defence's ability to negotiate a contract in effective terms. That will depend on the ability of the Ministry of Defence to enforce that contract, once it has been entered into, and, crucially, on the capacity of a private company to implement the terms and conditions of that contract. That is far too risky and flimsy a basis upon which to rest a matter as important as the nuclear weapons capability of the United Kingdom.
The issues that were raised on Second Reading have not been dealt with properly by the Government. For that reason, the Bill deserves to be rejected.

Mr. Brazier: I had the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee on the Bill. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) in commending my hon. Friend the Minister for his patience in Committee in the face of some very repetitive and often badly argued comments from the Opposition. I strongly support the Bill, and remind the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) that Conservative Members believe that the private sector is better at managing manufacturing operations because we have the modesty to see that, on the whole, private business is better at it than Governments.
I wish to raise just one of a number of points that my hon. Friend the Minister was good enough to discuss with me; indeed, it is the only issue that has not been fully resolved. It concerns research at Aldermaston. It is important to remember that, although there have been considerable problems about manufacturing, our research effort at Aldermaston remains world class. It is the envy of the Americans, for example, who never cease to be amazed at how the comparatively minute sums of money that we spend on research produce such great benefits. The Americans spend colossal sums in comparison. Nevertheless, our relationship with the large American facilities is important.
The basic problem with bringing in a contractor to manage research as well as production and development is that contractors do very little work in pure research, at least in the physics environment. If we are to ensure that we get the best of both worlds—I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is anxious to ensure that we do—and all the benefits of improvements in manufacturing that flow from the extension of contractorisation while keeping our world class reputation for research, we must safeguard the contract structure for our research facilities.
I have in mind two safeguards drawn from the American analogy. In the United States, there is a considerable distinction between the contractorisation of the research side, which is held in the three main establishments by non-profit-making organisations. In two cases the contractor is the university of California and in the third it is a non-profit-making trust, which is a subsidiary of a profit-making company.
The two safeguards that I propose are, first, that the contracts for research must be administered by the chief scientific adviser and not by the Procurement Executive. In America, we have seen how successfully the Department of

Energy manages the research contracts. They do so on a long-term basis, with five-year contracts that are assessed in arrears as opposed to the short-term approach of the Pentagon's procurement staff, adopted with other defence research facilities. I suggest that the chief scientific adviser should manage the contracts.
Secondly, the contract must be based on a system in which an outside body assesses the work at the end of a certain period when the bulk of the profit margin is awarded as a single sum so that the contractor does not, as so easily happens, find himself faced with large sums of money being spent on production and development work, on which their main attention is focused, and the small sums that are spent, perhaps on a cost-plus basis, on research get ignored. The talent can thus be sucked away from research into assisting development and production.
That is the only major aspect of the Bill that continues to concern me, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider those matters. I do not expect him to comment on them in detail when he replies to the debate. I remain convinced that the Bill is correct because I firmly believe that the private sector will manage the development and manufacturing side better at Aldermaston than any Government could and that it will provide the opportunity for the staff there to improve further their performance.

Mr. McWilliam: I should like to take this opportunity to correct one or two of the misapprehensions voiced by Conservative Members, particularly those of the hon. Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson). First, the trade unions were extremely helpful to the Select Committee on Defence when we were considering the problems of Aldermaston. No Opposition Member has argued recently that there was nothing wrong. We know that there is something wrong. The Select Committee reported that there was something wrong, made that clear to the House and made recommendations about ways in which we could correct the matter.
In the Bill, the Government have, as usual, gone too far. The trade unions made extremely helpful and forward-thinking suggestions, and have continued to do so. The view of the Select Committee, which was unanimous and which my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and I signed——

Mr. Home Robertson: I was not a member at the time.

Mr. McWilliam: I am sorry—my hon. Friend was not then a member. The report stated that there should be an injection of private expertise, but not privatisation.
I should also remind the Minister that it was not the public sector that ripped off the British taxpayer over the construction of the A90 buildings, but the private sector. Therefore, let us have no illusions about whether there are good and bad people in the private sector—there are.
The other factor that should concern Conservative Members, but does not seem to, is that the Americans managed to let the private sector destroy their atomic weapons production establishment at Rocky Flats because they were more interested in making money than in safety and making safe weapons. That establishment is now shut and cannot reopen where it was because it is no longer safe to be there. Private sector expertise did not help the Americans very much with that establishment.
I should remind Conservative Members who were not privileged to serve on the Standing Committee that the Minister has always relied on what he can get into the contract. When the Opposition attempted to introduce a schedule to set out some principles that should be included in the contract, he resisted our proposals. Therefore, we can have no confidence that the basic safeguards for which we are asking will be in the contract because we shall not see it—at least, not right away. We shall see it soon when the next general election comes, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) becomes the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. What is more, I am certain that, knowing my hon. Friend, he will take an early opportunity to make a statement to the House on the contract's shortcomings and how he intends to deal with them—but I am sure that he will deal with that issue in his own reply.
The Bill is the last piece of privatisation legislation to receive its Third Reading in the House. It does not deserve that Third Reading. It is the dying gasp of an outmoded, doctrinaire Conservative philosophy, epitomised by the Margaret Thatcher Foundation, which seems to have been set up. It will not have the effect that the Minister wants, and will not protect the nation in the way that our practical suggestion of a "next steps" agency would. We did not say, "Don't do anything." We have tried to be practical and to help all the way, but the Minister has been unwilling even to accept our sensible amendments about safety, health and foreign ownership. On that basis, the Bill does not deserve a Third Reading, and I intend to vote against it.

Mr. Morgan: It is not often that a Member for Cardiff rises in the Chamber twice in a week to oppose privatisation measures that affect his constituency. A few days ago, I opposed privatisation of the Export Credits Guarantee Department and now I am opposing the privatisation of the Atomic Weapons Establishment. The Cardiff, North constituency contains the third, or perhaps equal second, largest plant in the AWE empire.
This is not a popular measure in the Cardiff district. Two specific allegations relating to safety have been put to me, and I think it is important for the Minister to hear about them and deal with them. If we transpose beryllium for tritium, one of the allegations about the Atomic Weapons Establishment bears an uncanny resemblance to the incident at Aldermaston that has emerged in the public domain. I have been told that the handling procedure at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Llanishen, in respect of beryllium powder when it is melted to make beryllium alloy, malfunctions from time to time.
When that happens, it illustrates a classic case of the sort of choices that the private contractor would face—whether to abide by the safety regulations and contaminate his stock of argon gas or to contaminate the atmosphere which my constituents and those of Cardiff, North have to breathe.
The beryllium alloy is melted inside a steel tube, which is pressurised to 18,000 lb per square inch in argon gas. When the steel tube bursts, as it inevitably does every five or 10 years, the argon gas should be vented back to the argon gas store and contaminates it. That is hard luck on the argon gas, as it must then be disposed of because it has

beryllium in it, which is as toxic to the human chest as asbestos. In some ways, it is not as bad as radiation, but in other ways, its toxic effects can be worse in the shorter term. Unfortunately, the standard handling procedure for that very rare occurrence is to vent to atmosphere, rather than back to the argon store.
The second allegation is even more tricky and sensitive, and involves how private contractors would deal with any incident within the plant. Often when maintenance procedures are being carried out, people have to wear protective clothing. I have been told that no personnel are to appear out of doors within the plant complex dressed in protective gear in case that alarms people on the buses that go past the plant on their way up to the Llanishen council estate, Caerphilly and Rhiwbina. We should remember that the Cardiff establishment, unlike the other AWE establishments, is in the middle of a densely populated residential district in a large city of 300,000.
Such issues must be sorted out. We must determine the standard procedures that are to be used before the Bill becomes law and before it comes back to this House from the other place. I am not satisfied that the Minister has faced up to his responsibilities. He has not confronted the safety issues and the relationship of the establishment to the local community to enable me to act on behalf of my constituents and support the Government. As a result, I shall be in the No Lobby tonight.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 208, Noes 155.

Division No. 126]
[7.47 pm


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Cope, Rt Hon John


Amess, David
Cormack, Patrick


Amos, Alan
Couchman, James


Arbuthnot, James
Cran, James


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Critchley, Julian


Ashby, David
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Atkins, Robert
Curry, David


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Baldry, Tony
Day, Stephen


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Devlin, Tim


Bellingham, Henry
Dorrell, Stephen


Bendall, Vivian
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Dover, Den


Benyon, W.
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bevan, David Gilroy
Dykes, Hugh


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Evennett, David


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Body, Sir Richard
Fallon, Michael


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Favell, Tony


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Fishburn, John Dudley


Bowis, John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Fox, Sir Marcus


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Franks, Cecil


Brazier, Julian
Freeman, Roger


Bright, Graham
French, Douglas


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Fry, Peter


Burns, Simon
Gale, Roger


Burt, Alistair
Gardiner, Sir George


Butterfill, John
Gill, Christopher


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Carrington, Matthew
Goodlad, Alastair


Carttiss, Michael
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Chope, Christopher
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Churchill, Mr
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcllfie)
Gregory, Conal


Colvin, Michael
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)






Grist, Ian
Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Hague, William
Moss, Malcolm


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Neale, Sir Gerrard


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Nelson, Anthony


Hampson, Dr Keith
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hannam, John
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Nicholls, Patrick


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Harris, David
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Haselhurst, Alan
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hawkins, Christopher
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Paice, James


Hayward, Robert
Patnick, Irvine


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Redwood, John


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Riddick, Graham


Hunter, Andrew
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Irvine, Michael
Sackville, Hon Tom


Irving, Sir Charles
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jack, Michael
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Jackson, Robert
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Key, Robert
Squire, Robin


Kilfedder, James
Stanbrook, Ivor


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Stevens, Lewis


Kirkhope, Timothy
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Knapman, Roger
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Summerson, Hugo


Knowles, Michael
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Knox, David
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Latham, Michael
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Lawrence, Ivan
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Thorne, Neil


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Thornton, Malcolm


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Thurnham, Peter


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Trotter, Neville


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Maclean, David
Viggers, Peter


McLoughlin, Patrick
Walden, George


Madel, David
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Malins, Humfrey
Waller, Gary


Mans, Keith
Ward, John


Maples, John
Watts, John


Marland, Paul
Wells, Bowen


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Wheeler, Sir John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Whitney, Ray


Maude, Hon Francis
Widdecombe, Ann


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Wiggin, Jerry


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Wilkinson, John


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Wilshire, David


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Miller, Sir Hal
Wood, Timothy


Mills, lain
Yeo, Tim


Miscampbell, Norman
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)



Mitchell, Sir David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Monro, Sir Hector
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Tim Boswell


Moore, Rt Hon John





NOES


Adams Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Barron, Kevin


Allen, Graham
Battle, John


Alton, David
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Anderson, Donald
Bennett, A.F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bermingham, Gerald


Armstrong, Hilary
Bidwell, Sydney


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Bradley, Keith


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)





Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
McCartney, Ian


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
McKelvey, William


Caborn, Richard
McLeish, Henry


Callaghan, Jim
Maclennan, Robert


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
McMaster, Gordon


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
McWilliam, John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Madden, Max


Canavan, Dennis
Marek, Dr John


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cartwright, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Clelland, David
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Martlew, Eric


Cohen, Harry
Maxton, John


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Meale, Alan


Corbett, Robin
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Cousins, Jim
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Crowther, Stan
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Cryer, Bob
Morgan, Rhodri


Cummings, John
Mowlam, Marjorie


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Mullin, Chris


Dalyell, Tarn
Murphy, Paul


Darling, Alistair
Nellist, Dave


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
O'Brien, William


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
O'Neill, Martin


Dixon, Don
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dobson, Frank
Patched, Terry


Duffy, A. E. P.
Pendry, Tom


Eadie, Alexander
Pike, Peter L.


Eastham, Ken
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Fatchett, Derek
Prescott, John


Faulds, Andrew
Primarolo, Dawn


Fearn, Ronald
Quin, Ms Joyce


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Radice, Giles


Flannery, Martin
Randall, Stuart


Flynn, Paul
Reid, Dr John


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Richardson, Jo


Foster, Derek
Rogers, Allan


Foulkes, George
Rooker, Jeff


Fraser, John
Rooney, Terence


Fyfe, Maria
Rowlands, Ted


Galloway, George
Ruddock, Joan


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Sedgemore, Brian


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Golding, Mrs Llin
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Gordon, Mildred
Short, Clare


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Skinner, Dennis


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Grocott, Bruce
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Hain, Peter
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Snape, Peter


Haynes, Frank
Soley, Clive


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Spearing, Nigel


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Steinberg, Gerry


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Straw, Jack


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Home Robertson, John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Hood, Jimmy
Turner, Dennis


Howells, Geraint
Wallace, James


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Wigley, Dafydd


Ingram, Adam
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Kennedy, Charles
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Lamond, James
Wilson, Brian


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Winnick, David


Livingstone, Ken
Worthington, Tony


Livsey, Richard



Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Tellers for the Noes:


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Jimmy Dunachie


Loyden, Eddie



McAllion, John

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Broadcasting Licences

8 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I beg to move,
That the draft Broadcasting (Restrictions on the Holding of Licences) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 28th March, be approved.
The order is made under the powers contained in schedule 2 to the Broadcasting Act 1990. Its purpose is to supplement the broadcasting ownership rules contained in schedule 2 by introducing certain additional provisions which, no doubt to the relief of the House, I shall summarise rather than rehearse in full.
The provisions in the draft order that are, I suspect, of most immediate interest to the House are those relating to the circumstances in which two regional Channel 3 licences can be co-owned. The order provides, first, that two such licences may not be co-owned if they are both large. For these purposes, we have designated the top nine, in terms of advertising revenue, as large, and the remaining six as small.
When the Government originally announced their decisions on the ownership of Channel 3 licences, we said that, in addition to ruling out co-ownership of two large licences, we planned also to prohibit co-ownership of two licences for adjacent areas. This became known somewhat inelegantly as the contiguity rule. At that stage, the Independent Television Commission had not set out the number or shape of Channel 3 regions that it was going to advertise. However, we were working on the basis that, if the ITC was minded to retain the existing ITV map—which it has now said that it intends to do—we would expect only the top six to be designated as large.
In making general provision for one person to hold two Channel 3 licences, we recognised that in some cases such an arrangement could result in sensible economies of scale without threatening regional identity. We were, however, anxious to avoid circumstances in which licences covering an unacceptably large part of the country were held in common ownership. The proposed ban on contiguous ownership was intended to meet that concern.
We decided, on further reflection, that to impose a contiguity rule of that kind for the full 10-year licence period might be counter-productive, in that it could prevent some combinations of ownership which offered scope for sensible economies of scale, and were therefore potentially attractive in commercial terms.
Indeed, given the uncertainties of the broadcasting environment in the 1990s, I simply do not believe that it would have been practicable to rule out for all time the possibility of contiguous mergers which might, under some circumstances, be in the best interests of all concerned, especially the viewers.
Simply to have dropped the contiguity rule, while retaining only six large areas would, however, have left the way open for combinations of ownership which could give an unhealthy dominance to a single company. We therefore decided that if, in the longer term, there was to be no separate contiguity rule, it was right to increase the number of regions to be designated as "large" from six to nine, and the draft order so provides.
In response to strong representations that we received from various quarters on the contiguity issue, we have also accepted that we should offer some reassurance to the

smaller companies that they will not risk being outbid by predatory neighbours before they have the opportunity to establish themselves. Therefore, we decided that a contiguity rule should apply during the bidding process for the new Channel 3 licences.
The effect will be that a single person or company cannot win two licences for adjacent areas. This restriction will, however, be lifted as soon as the relevant licences have been granted, at the end of this year or early next. From then on, there will be no specific ban on contiguous takeovers, but takeovers of all kinds will, of course, be subject to the general moratorium on takeovers imposed by section 21 of the 1990 Act.
Under that provision, takeovers can take place until the end of 1993 only with the consent of the ITC. The ITC is likely to give consent to takeover or merger proposals during that period in certain circumstances, such as where one of the licensees was in serious financial difficulties, or where a planned merger had the joint agreement of both parties. Hostile takeovers, on the other hand, would almost certainly be ruled out.
I should emphasise that our decision on contiguity does not imply that, at the end of the moratorium period, any or all of the smaller regions will necessarily be co-owned by a company holding a larger region. Moreover, where one company holds two licences, it will still be obliged to meet in full the separate regional requirements for each of the two regions.
The chairman of the ITC is in full agreement with our proposal, and considers that the ITC will have no difficulty in ensuring that where licence areas are co-owned, the licensee provides distinctive local programming for each region.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: If the separate requirements of individual regions have to be maintained—I understand that that is so as to maintain regional identity—how does the hon. Gentleman believe that there could be scope for the sort of economies of scale that might be the only justification for some sort of merger?

Mr. Lloyd: There could be economies in the use of a sales force or in some of the administrative back-up. There are a number of ways in which that might be achieved. However, what could not be altered is the undertaking made and enshrined in the licence about the type of regional programmes that would be provided, the number of hours, the time and the ITC's requirement that 80 per cent. of regional programming must be produced in the region either by the licence or independents. Therefore, there is a strong safeguard as regards regional broadcasting, but there is plenty of scope for economies of scale.
I believe that these provisions on co-ownership, while different in form from what we envisaged originally, are entirely consistent with the policy intentions that we announced during the passage of the Broadcasting Bill last Session. We continue to attach great importance to ensuring the preservation of the district regional identity of the Channel 3 licences and to the discharge by the licensees of their regional programming obligations, as I have just said.
The ITC has, as I have said, confirmed that it will be able to ensure that regional commitments are fulfilled, even when there is joint ownership of two contiguous


licence areas. I am not surprised that it should have come to that conclusion, as the Broadcasting Act contains some very substantial safeguards.
For example, the Act requires that a sufficient amount of time should be given for regional programmes. That varies from licensee to licensee but generally it is more than has been the case in the arrangements to date. It follows that if, following the moratorium period, a single person were eventually to own two contiguous licence areas, he would not be permitted to treat them as one mega-region and transmit identical programmes in both areas. Neither could he, as some have feared, simply move the entirety of his programme production base to a single location and produce what purport to be separate regional programmes from there.

Mr. Robin Corbett: The Minister mentioned programme production bases, but perhaps he would confirm that the Act does not stipulate that regional programmes must be made in the region.

Mr. Lloyd: It is certainly stipulated in the requirements set by the ITC. To meet the quality threshold, a bidder must state that he will do that, and it will be written into his licence if he is successful. Therefore, we shall have a copper-bottomed undertaking.

Mr. John Greenway: Does not the Bill strengthen the regional commitment of Channel 3 licensees by virtue of amendments passed in Committee? Those amendments will require licensees to demonstrate to the ITC what arrangements they are making for regional programmes, which must be made in the region.

Mr. Lloyd: That is right but, if my memory serves me correctly, the Bill did not specify what the figure would be. The ITC has since specified that it is to be 80 per cent., and that figure will be written into the licence agreements. If there is a takeover, the new owner must observe the agreement.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: The issue is where and how such programmes will be made. It is right that there should be a regional commitment. The strength of ITV is that it sets up regional centures of excellence in television production. They are there because of the federal system. Now, there will be nothing to require those centres to be maintained. Programmes could be farmed out to independents nominally in the regions, and those centres of excellence and skill could be disbanded and eliminated.

Mr. Lloyd: Regional programmes will have to be made in the regions. That is not a nominal requirement. Eighty per cent. must be made there because, if not, a company would not be fulfilling the requirement laid down by the ITC, which will be included in the licence agreements.

Mr. Corbett: I wish to clarify one point. It is true that the ITC has stipulated that 80 per cent. of regional programmes should be made in the regions. However, let us be clear that regional programmes—again I speak from memory—may involve as few as five or six hours a week, although the bigger London stations may make more. Nevertheless, the lion's share of the 80 per cent. requirement in the Bill will involve only local news and current affairs. Therefore, some regions could be left with little more than a news studio.

Mr. Lloyd: I am sure that there will be much greater variety under the new arrangements. There will certainly be greater use of independents. Rather than programme-producing companies, we shall see publishing companies but, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) knows, 25 per cent. of ITV output will have to be taken from independents. Where those independents are based will be for them to decide. They will choose wherever they find it most convenient to be located and that is something that we cannot determine, nor should we seek to do so.
Although I understand the fear that the independents will inevitably gravitate to London, it will not necessarily prove to be soundly based. First, there are production facilities around the country. Secondly, other parts of the country are cheaper and thirdly, there is no doubt that a relationship with a regional licensee will be of interest to some independent contractors. Those factors will militate against the counter-attraction of London. However, the hon. Gentleman is right: the independents will locate themselves where, in business terms, they find it most sensible to be.
I deal now with the provisions in the order relating to further concentrations of interest in Channel 3 and Channel 5 licences. The Broadcasting Act 1990 sets out the maximum number of such licences which any one person may hold. The order introduces some additional restrictions. It provides that, once a person has acquired the maximum ownership in two regional Channel 3 licences in accordance with the Act or with the rules contained in this order, he may have a maximum shareholding of 20 per cent. in one further regional Channel 3 licence, provided that that does not constitute a controlling interest, and thereafter, no more than a 5 per cent. shareholding in further such licences. Similar rules apply in relation to national Channel 3 licences and Channel 5 licences.
The order also deals with newspapers shareholdings in broadcasting licences. It provides that national newspaper proprietors will not be permitted to have more than a 20 per cent. interest in any local radio licence, and that national or local newspaper proprietors will similarly be forbidden to hold more than 20 per cent. interest in a Channel 3, Channel 5 or domestic satellite service licence.
During the passage of the Broadcasting Bill through both Houses, there was considerable debate as to whether this rule should be extended to cover non-domestic satellite services. We argued then, and I continue to argue now, that it is neither necessary nor desirable for it to do so. Our policy rests on the fact that non-domestic satellite services have developed under different ground rules from terrestrial or domestic satellite services.
Domestic satellite services use broadcasting frequencies allocated by international agreement, of which only a small number—five at present—are available to the United Kingdom. In contrast, non-domestic satellite services like BSkyB face virtually open-ended scope for competition from a diversity of different channels in different hands transmitted from satellites such as Astra, which use telecommunications rather than broadcasting frequencies.
The relative ease with which new non-domestic satellite services can be introduced means that there is little danger of such services being controlled by a few major interests which might represent a threat to plurality of information sources. For that reason, we see no case for limiting


newspaper investment in them. Were we to do so, of course, we should risk ending the extension of choice already brought about by such channels and jeopardising the 1,000 or so jobs which they have created in this country.
BSkyB does not have a monopoly on television services and we believe that competition among the terrestrial channels, BSkyB and other existing and future satellite televison services is sufficient to ensure editorial diversity.
Under the order, no public telecommunications operator will be permitted to have a controlling interest in any Channel 3, Channel 5, national radio or domestic satellite licence. I believe that it will be generally accepted that it would be undesirable to permit major telecommunications operators like British Telecom to control those key broadcasting licences.
Finally, the order makes provision for a points scheme to determine the maximum permitted ownership of local radio stations. All stations will be awarded points on the basis of their audience reach. It will be permissible to own stations which correspond to a maximum of 15 per cent. of the total number of points in the system, subject to the overall limit of 20 services contained in the Act.
This arrangement, which was announced in the course of proceedings on the Broadcasting Bill, is intended to take account of the likely growth in the number of local radio stations over the next few years, and of the great variety of individual stations, from the major ones such as Capital Radio and other large metropolitan stations, to the smallest community or ethnic services transmitting to a local neighbourhood.
These supplementary ownership rules, contained within the order, represent a reasonable and practical framework for regulatory control over the services which the ITC and Radio Authority will regulate. If the rules are approved by this House and in another place, we intend that they should come into effect as soon as possible. I commend the draft order to the House.

Mr. Robin Corbett: I congratulate the Minister belatedly—referring to the date of his arrival rather than my congratulations. I believe that I am right in saying that this is the first broadcasting debate which the Minister has taken without someone whom I shall describe in a kindly way as his Svengali friend, who has now gone off to labour in the bowels of the Treasury as a reward for some small assistance that he rendered the Prime Minister during some stormy days in November.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: He is lurking about.

Mr. Corbett: I do not doubt that he is lurking about somewhere.
I thank the Minister for outlining the principal effect of the order. I wish to put three points to him. Of course it is true that the Independent Television Commission is advertising the Channel 3 regional licences on the basis of the existing map. However, there is no guarantee that each of the areas will attract bids. I say that seriously. It would be invidious to name areas which might attract negative

bids. What thought, if any, has the Minister or, indeed, the ITC given to that possibility? It touches on the changes that he has made in the rule on contiguity.
I understand the protection which the Minister has put in place and which will remain until the bidding system is over. But the risk must remain—this was touched on in some of the interventions that the Minister was kind enough to take—as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said, that, if ownership of a certain type prevails in adjacent areas, there will be pressure on those Channel 3 regional licence holders who are producing to make some economies in, for example, production and studio facilities. This is not guesswork. It has already happened in Birmingham and the west midlands with Central Television, which, by and large, has moved its major production facilities to an extensive site in Nottingham, which the Independent Broadcasting Authority encouraged it to build.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Quite rightly.

Mr. Corbett: As my hon. Friend said, that was quite right, in the context in which the company took over the franchise. There must be a risk if a company has two sets of production facilities and one is used more than the other. I do not argue with the commitment to fulfil the 25 per cent. quota for the independents, but it also has ramifications.
We have had experience, especially in the London area, of some of the television stations wanting to start to meet the 25 per cent. production quota. They talked to the independents about making programmes but used their muscle to insist that the independents use the production facilities of the commissioning company rather than their own facilities. So there are some risks.
The other point that I wish to put to the Minister is about something that already happens and which may fit with what he has in mind with economies of scale. To my knowledge, at least three television companies share a joint advertising sales force. That is happening now, before any other alterations have come about. If one company ended up owning two Channel 3 regional licences, its advertising sales force would be one area which it would immediately look at. To that extent, I can see that it makes commercial sense. Is the Minister sure that that would not run foul of competition policy? Has the point been put to the Office of Fair Trading? If not, perhaps it might be, so that everyone might know where he is going.
It is fair to say that in all our debates in the House on broadcasting during the past two or three years there has been general and cross-party agreement that democracy is at risk if too much media power is concentrated in too few hands. Indeed, we know that. In spring of 1989, 62 Conservative Members were among 87 Members of Parliament who signed an early-day motion calling for an extension of controls on ownership in the media.
In January 1989, the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), seemed to anticipate that demand, when he said:
We will propose extensive and effective rules to prevent concentration of broadcasting ownership and unhealthy cross-media ownership … It is crucially important that we should have such rules … Real choice would be undermined if British broadcasting were allowed to be dominated by a handful of tycoons or international conglomerates.
If only the wish had been the father to the deed. But it was not, as we shall see.
In November 1989, a Gallup survey of 141 Members of Parliament found that 112 of them—roughly eight out of 10—believed that it was wrong for the same proprietor simultaneously to control newspapers and television stations; and seven out of 10 believed that safeguards should be applied irrespective of the transmission method used. Again, what a pity that those voices were not listened to when it came to the ownership proposals in the Bill, and now in the order.
Those opinions did no more than echo the claimed aspirations of the Government. In their White Paper of November 1988, right at the beginning of the process, they asserted their determination that ownership in the independent—that is, commercial—sector should remain widely spread and unhealthy concentrations of ownership and excessive cross-media ownership should be prevented. Again, those sentiments were widely accepted, although on this side of the House we question whether ownership is sufficiently widely spread now. However, this order, like the Broadcasting Act 1990, makes a small attempt to honour those ambitions.
Under the order, a company making the highest bid for, and obtaining, a regional Channel 3 licence can end up buying a second franchise after the auction round. But that is not all, as the Minister explained. A Channel 3 licence holder with a non-controlling interest in a second Channel 3 company can go on to have a 20 per cent. holding in a third such company, provided that it is not a controlling interest, and, indeed, a 5 per cent. interest in a fourth company. Again, that underlines the possible danger that a company in that position will look to see what it can do on the basis of the Minister's economies of scale to rationalise the individual facilities within those four companies. The order will not ensure that ownership in the commercial sector is, as the Government's White Paper hoped, widely spread. Nor does it properly protect against unhealthy concentrations of ownership or excessive cross-media ownership.
I believe that the Government looked at the fast changing media industry and the rapid growth of the media mammoths and decided that it was all too complicated. It is late enough as it is to introduce these orders to settle the position finally, just 21 days before the Channel 3 auction bids have to be lodged. We agree that matters of media ownership and cross ownership are complicated and that the commercial arguments for global empires which span print, video, film, television and sound recordings are at one level persuasive, especially in the cut-throat international market. But The Economist of 23 September 1989 had the answer to that. It said:
The media have moved beyond being mere providers of entertainment and information. They have become a forum that rivals Parliaments. A plurality of opinion in that forum is as essential to democracy as the ballot box.
That language may be a little high-flown, but the sentiments are exactly right, and ones which Opposition Members certainly share.
We have had experience, following newspaper takeovers, which should teach us that it would be quite wrong to accept the mere words of safeguards offered by either a powerful media owner or a transnational giant when it comes to the ownership of such a powerful, instant opinion-shaping medium as television, with its easy and quick access to every home in the land.
We in this House have a duty to protect and promote our liberties, not to entrust them to hands that have no

other motive than the use of them to generate personal and corporate wealth and power. We need ownership and cross-ownership rules that encourage the range of voices and opinions that our democracy needs to hear and listen to. I find it slightly ironic that, just as the formerly monolithic media monopolies of eastern Europe, the Soviet Union and elsewhere are being broken up, we are headed for a concentration of ownership that few other advanced democracies would countenance.
I do not want to disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), but I have to say that no discussion of media ownership would be complete without a mention of those who use the non-DBS satellite, first among them British Sky Broadcasting. It was bad enough that the Government, in schedule 2 of the Broadcasting Act, provided powers to bring the non-DBS satellite services into scope of ownership provisions but then declined to use these powers. That was bad enough when there were two competing satellite services—one controlled, the other not controlled. There was then the takeover of BSB by Sky, done with the reported knowledge of the then Prime Minister, who somehow forgot to tell the then Home Secretary. That deal was stitched together within 48 hours of the Broadcasting Act's getting the Royal Assent—the most noble snook that has ever been cocked at any legislation going through this House.
As a consequence, British Sky Broadcasting now has a satellite monopoly. It is aiming for 1 million viewers, two to three years ahead, rivalling the audiences—indeed, exceeding the audiences—of most the Channel 3 stations. Yet it remains splendidly untrammelled by any of the ownership and cross-ownership restrictions that even this order provides.
There are dangers to democracy here, as The Observer reported on 23 December 1990. That newspaper claimed that Mr. Rupert Murdoch—the person who owns newspapers that sell 35 out of every 100 bought each day in Britain, and half of British Sky Broadcasting—had been refused a knighthood in the resignation honours list of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) by the august honours scrutiny committee.

Mr. Graham Riddick: Ah!

Mr. Corbett: The hon. Gentleman may be interested in the reason that was put forward. That was said in the context of a report that Mr. Murdoch had given funds to an extreme right-wing magazine called British Briefing, which attempted to smear my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and others at the time of the last election. Behind British Briefing was the right-wing loony David Hart, a former close aide of the former Prime Minister. That is why I say again to the Minister—and I hope that none of us will have reason to recall these words—that the medium of television, whatever the means of its delivery, is far too powerful and far too instant to be left, like those using the Astra satellite, outwith any meaningful ownership controls.

Mr. Roger Gale: I waited deliberately before intervening, as I hoped that the hon. Gentleman would qualify or justify his statement that BSkyB has a monopoly. There are 16 channels on Astra, with another 16 to come, and with a further Astra satellite planned. On the Marco Polo satellite, five channels are available but are


not used. In these circumstances, how can the hon. Gentleman possibly say that BSkyB has a monopoly in satellite broadcasting?

Mr. Corbett: In reply to the hon. Gentleman I shall now say something that I would have said later. Were I an original BSB subscriber—and I believe that it launched some kind of founders' club—I should be mindful of the fact that in return for my subscription it had promised me five channels. From 15 April, BSB subscribers have had three channels. Nobody could pretend that that widens opportunity or choice.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: That does not make it a monopoly.

Mr. Corbett: It makes a monopoly in one sense. For reasons that I understand, the ITC has required BSkyB to keep broadcasting on the Marco Polo satellite. That makes sense, but its net effect, in popular terms, is that, to all intents and purposes, there is now a monopoly.
There is one consequence of the Sky takeover of BSB to which I want to draw the Minister's attention.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: My hon. Friend has said that there are dangers in monopoly, in concentration of ownership in the press and television. If that is a danger to freedom, what are the measures to deal with the problem, if they too are not a danger to freedom? How does my hon. Friend propose to end that monopoly? Does he propose to shoot down the satellites? Does he propose to prevent people from having receivers in their homes? Does he propose that public money should be provided to support competition? How is the press situation to be dealt with when some of that power comes from continuing newspapers that were failing? The classic example is The Sun. Who gave The Sun to Rupert Murdoch? There is also the example of Today. How are we to solve those problems without restricting freedom?

Mr. Corbett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that little GCSE question. He tempts me to go a little wider than this debate. If he is patient for a couple of minutes, his questions may be answered. I have no ambition to send Corbett storm-troopers into any studio at any time for any purpose. Of course, there is no such thing as a Corbett storm-trooper.
There is one consequence of the Sky takeover of BSB to which I should like to draw the Minister's attention. The then Independent Broadcasting Authority, BSB and Sky reached agreement on 20 December 1990 that BSB's licence to broadcast would not be revoked until a suitable alternative user of the Marco Polo satellite could be found. There is some hope that that will happen. Many of us have been fairly surprised, but there are some very exciting ideas for the use of that satellite. However, the understanding was that there would be no material change in the BSB service for another two years.
BSB's licence can be terminated as soon as June of this year, and will be terminated by the end of next year. Is the Minister in any position to require BSkyB, as the successor company, to undertake that all of the BSB equipment sold after 20 December—the date of the agreement—will be covered by a guarantee of exchange for Sky equipment when the change over is made? The Minister and the House will recall that, when that takeover happened, the

immediate reaction of the new bosses of BSkyB was to give that assurance. But, unknown to many people, there was the cut-off date of 20 December.
I am told that BSkyB had earlier tried to persuade retailers to offer the BSB equipment for sale, knowing that it would not be covered by any guarantee of automatic exchange. Quite rightly, both retailers and manufacturers rejected this as being against the best interest of consumers. I wonder whether the Minister is able to persuade BSkyB to give this assurance of automatic exchange to those who want it. As I said to the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), it is bad enough that, from 15 April this year, the BSkyB schedules have been changed so that all channels will be transmitted on both Marco Polo and Astra satellites. The original BSB subscribers will be robbed of three of the five channels that they thought they had bought.
Let me now reward the patience of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby. There is nothing new in what I am about to suggest as we said it throughout the passage of the Broadcasting Act. What the Government should have done—they started with the Sadler inquiry, until they turned it into a BBC-bashing exercise—was to have used the time between the publication of the White Paper in November 1988 and now to ask the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to report on media and cross-media ownership. That embraces all the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby.
As I said earlier, it is an extremely complicated subject. One could take the purist view of one man, one newspaper and one television station, but that would be rather too simplistic. That is why the advice of a body such as the Monopolies and Mergers Commission could have helped the Government and the House.
The Government did not take that chance, but the next Labour Government will consult the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and will legislate on the basis of its proposals well before the new Channel 3 regional and national licences become due for renewal. We shall insist that licences are bid for again in open competition with more stringent quality and regional programming commitments. Even before that date, we may have some proposals to protect and promote public service broadcasting to offer viewers and listeners.
Our view is that the Government are taking a needless risk with our democracy because they declined to ask for the advice of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The order enables a dangerous concentration of television and radio ownership to grow, although it may not quite match that of the press. That is why we shall oppose it tonight.

Mr. Roger Gale: I should like to pick up a couple of points that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) made at the start of his speech. First, he referred to the need to protect the two-centre franchises. It may gratify the hon. Gentleman to know that I agree with him entirely and share his concern. I think particularly of two such franchises. Central Television has studios in Birmingham and Nottingham and, in my own area, TV South has studios in Southampton, and built very fine studios at Maidstone as part of the honouring of its franchise undertakings when it took over from Southern Television.
It is a great sadness for those of us who live in Kent and Sussex that those studios are now lying idle. Although they produce an excellent nightly regional news and magazine service, the production capacity is largely wasted. There is real concern that, when the franchise comes up for renewal, is auctioned and perhaps taken over by an other company, or if TV South wins a renewal of its franchise, it might be economically attractive to close the studios altogether or to hive them off so that they become simply an independent production centre. Many of us who live in and represent that area feel that that would be a great shame.
I was encouraged by the emphasis that my hon. Friend the Minister put on the provisions that have been laid down by the Independent Television Commission for local production. It is extremely important that the ITC insists that those undertakings are not simply given in franchise bids but are honoured in the realisation of the franchise. I hope that my hon. Friend and the ITC will keep a watchful eye on the amount of investment in local production once franchises have been awarded. I very much hope that they will insist that production centres such as those at Nottingham and at Maidstone are maintained and developed.
My second point concerns provision for local radio, to which my hon. Friend the Minister referred fleetingly in his opening remarks. The concerns expressed about the cross-media control of local radio when we were debating the Broadcasting Bill in Committee are academic.
Since the Bill was enacted and since the award of wavelengths began, it has become apparent that there are far too few frequencies available for the comprehensive community radio service that many of us envisaged to become established, at least in the short term. The authority has advertised relatively few and will supplement them a little by the end of the year. More stations will certainly be established in the north of Engalnd than in the south.
I am reliably informed today that, in the south-east, the scarcity of frequencies is such that there will be very few community radio stations. That means that stations such as Radio Cabin in Herne Bay in my constituency, which was mentioned frequently during the passage of the Bill, and Radio Woody, immortalised during our deliberations in Standing Committee, will remain a dream in the eyes and minds of programme directors.
I therefore urge my hon. Friend to pay particular attention to the need to release the necessary frequencies as quickly as possible and to encourage those currently occupying them to move to other wavebands, so that the Radio Authority can get on and do the job that those of us who served on the Standing Committee believed that it would do and to enable the development of a genuine community radio service as widely as possible throughout the country.
I now turn tothe main thrust of my brief speech—the development of satellite broadcasting. It always saddens me when the hon. Member for Erdington finds it necessary to indulge in the regular bout of Murdoch-bashing. It has become something of a blood sport among the Opposition and no doubt we shall hear more of it before the end of the debate. The hon. Gentleman did not answer the questions put to him by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and myself.
No reasonable person could say that British Sky Broadcasting has a monopoly of satellite broadcasting in

the European skies. The Astra satellite carries a number of channels and more will follow. During the passage of the Broadcasting Bill, I mentioned the fact that the Hughes Corporation of America has plans to launch in 1993 a digitally transmitting satellite carrying 104 televison channels. That will horrify many people, but it is planned.
In that context, it is not realistic to say that Mr. Murdoch and his channel have a monopoly. Sky Television blazed a trail that would otherwise have been followed probably by Ted Turner and his company. Given the choice, I believe that the satellite viewer in the United Kingdom would prefer the offerings of Sky Television—a largely British company— to those broadcast by Ted Turner or any other American company. Sky Television, in its merger with BSB, has not killed off three channels of Marco Polo transmission, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, but has rescued two which otherwise would have gone into the bin. There was no question of both those companies surviving. The merger was no part of a plot to jump on the back of the Broadcasting Act 1990 immediately it became law.
About two years ago in this Chamber on a Friday morning, we had a brief debate on the future of broadcasting. I had the temerity to suggest that, unless those two companies got together, neither would survive. It gives me no pleasure to say that that is exactly what has happened. The choice, as in so many cases, was not between maintaining both channels or allowing one to take over the other. Those companies had to merge, or both would have gone under. If that had happened, we would have had no satellite television service on offer to the United Kingdom viewers. No satellite service would have been provided for the investors in squarials and the receiving equipment already referred to today. The failure of those companies would have meant that we had no satellite service to compete with those services already offered by our continental competitors and American companies.
I find it sad that, in this Chamber and in Europe, we continually debate the control of television, when we should be debating the future development of television and satellite services.
The development of digital transmission was debated in Committee on the Broadcasting Bill. The European Community has spent a great amount of time and wasted effort on pursuing high definition television with a MAC—multiplexed analogue components—transmission system. That system is already virtually obsolete; as obsolete as the Marco Polo satellite which relies upon that transmission system.
It is an absolute certainty—recent demonstrations in America have proved this—that digital satellite and terrestrial transmission will be with us by about 1993. That is the television of the future. However, the Opposition are seeking to stultify that development by continually seeking to control.
What those behind Sky Television, and now BSB, have done is to take a major step forward. Those same people have invested and lost vast sums of money on satellite technology, but they are still prepared to look one stage ahead. People in this country and in Europe should be prepared to take that step. In Europe, those who have invested heavily, with large pots of socialist money, in high definition television should be prepared to cut loose from that and invest in the development of digital picture transmission.
Unless that happens, the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe will be left out in the cold as the Americans, who have already developed this technology, take the lead. That is the choice we face. That is why I believe that, for all its many faults, the role that Sky Broadcasting, and now BSB, are playing in the development of television towards the 21st century is so important.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the order carefully, and to consider one important fact. Under the order, BSB must divest itself of its broadcasting capacity on the Marco Polo satellite. Unless the House of Commons is mug enough to use that archaic form of technology to transmit the proceedings of the House to those non-existent people who will be able to watch it, the Marco Polo satellite will be a dustbin floating around the sky.
If BSB is not allowed to continue to use Marco Polo because of tonight's order, that company, which has already invested huge sums of money in the development of satellite in the United Kingdom, will have to give to every owner of a squarial a receiver capable of receiving the Astra signal. That would be a complete waste of money, money that would be much better spent investing in the development of the technology of the 21st century. I urge my hon. Friend to reconsider the order.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I suppose that many people would share the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) for the development of satellite television, which will widen consumer choice. I am not sure, however, that many would agree with the hon. Gentleman that those who took the decision to buy a squarial should have been the victims of the collapse of BSB two days after the enactment of the Broadcasting Act 1990. Although I share the view that it is not quite precise to describe BSkyB as a monopolistic entity, it has been exercising its market power in a rather unattractive way with respect to its obligations—moral, if not legal—towards those who had already acquired a squarial.
I should like the Minister to answer the points raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) who alleged that the company invited retailers to put BSB equipment back on the market so as to avoid having to pay compensation. That is quite a serious charge and it merits a response from the Minister. The Minister may say that he has no control over the situation, but that only demonstrates some of the weaknesses of the regulatory framework in protecting the consumer interest—a Government responsibility.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I can give the hon. Gentleman some reassurance. As I understand it, the ITC has agreed with BSkyB that it will replace the squarials that were functioning before the merger took place at no cost to the customers.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that Ministers do not have the power to require any business to compensate its customers in any particular way. It may have a moral obligation towards its customers, in which case that is a matter for the company. It may have a legal obligation, and that is a matter for the law. The hon. Gentleman will understand, however, that in this case, as with any other

commercial undertaking, it is not a matter on which Ministers can rule. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be somewhat reassured, however, by the agreement that has been reached for BSB customers.

Mr. Maclennan: I agree, but I think that that point was fairly widely known. The hon. Member for Erdington was making a new point, which was that BSB had apparently attempted to encourage retailers to continue marketing equipment for which the consumer would have no necessity, in order to avoid its undertaking to replace equipment acquired at an earlier date.
I accept that Ministers have limited power, but if they look with a drooping and inauspicious eye on what important men of commerce do, the men of commerce will notice that. It is not a matter of leverage; it is just a matter of disapproval. If the allegations made by the hon. Member for Erdington are true, they are pretty disreputable.

Mr. Lloyd: Perhaps I can say sufficient to enable the hon. Gentleman to move on to another point, even if it is not to his complete satisfaction. I listened to what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) said and I took due note of it. It is not a matter of which I have knowledge, but it is something with which I intend to acquaint myself. From the way he put it, it is certainly not a matter for me, whether I would like it to be or not.
I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) say that the old squarials are no use and that anybody who is foolish enough to buy one would be making a huge mistake. I hope that that will not be the case. If the hon. Gentleman had any of the optimism of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) and looked ahead to the further development of satellite television, he might make a good bargain with what now looks like redundant equipment. It is for him as a customer to make his own judgment and to make up his mind.

Mr. Maclennan: I have made the point. The Minister may be wise to encourage me to move on to another point, so I shall do so.
The background against which the order is being debated is not quite the same commercial background as that which greeted the Broadcasting Bill in its infancy. It is fair to say that we are now in a more competitive situation than we were at that time. Advertising revenue is substantially reduced and those companies which are contemplating bidding for the franchises for Channel 3 are doing so in a cold climate. That makes the cross-ownership provisions that we are considering tonight perhaps more significant. There may be those who are less enthusiastic about bidding than they were. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Erdington is right in speculating about negative bidding—I hope not—but undoubtedly it is a cold climate.
That moves me to ask the Minister about the outcome of the representations that were made to him and other Ministers on 8 April at a meeting with representatives of the Independent Television Association led, I believe, by Sir Brian Bailey, about the severity of the impact of the levy on the revenue of the company. It would be reasonable for the Government to make clear their conclusions on that point before the date of bidding. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity of this debate tonight to give some idea of the Government's


thinking on that point. I understand that there have been discussions between his Department and the Treasury about it.
I come now not just to the circumstances but to the terms of the order. It may be appropriate to begin by saying that I acknowledge, and with some satisfaction, the fact that the Home Secretary did in part reverse his position as a result of pressure put upon him not only by me but by a number of other hon. Members and companies in respect of the contiguity principle.
It must be said that, when the Bill was enacted last year, it was without any expectation that its provisions, and the assurances that had been given during its passage through the House, would be so radically changed as they were by the present Home Secretary, almost as the first act of taking office in November.
Those who participated in the protracted debates know that the importance of regional television dominated our discussions of Channel 3—who was to acquire the licences and what standards would be required of bidders. It was with those concerns in mind that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who was then the Minister responsible for the Broadcasting Bill, gave a clear undertaking to the House that the contiguity rule—not a very elegant description, but it is clear—would be maintained. It was intended to prevent a process of consolidation in regional television production which would lead to the disappearance of the characteristic qualities of the 15 regions.
The hon. Member for Thanet, North spoke about the problems of TVS and told us what was happening to the studios in Maidstone and Southampton—and in Nottingham too, with Central. Hon. Members of all parties were anxious that such pressures should be held at bay. We were all eager to maintain the regional basis of television, especially with Channel 3—that was really the sole justification for its separate existence. I am glad that the Minister found it possible at least to reach this compromise. It is an important step in the right direction and will give the companies in the bidding process the opportunity to establish themselves. It will prevent. them from being tested by hostile predatory bids before the end of the moratorium provided for under section 21 of the Broadcasting Act.
It is likely that many of the companies, probably most of them, will put this period to good use by fortifying themselves against unwanted attention from predatory neighbours. However, it would have been wiser to have stuck to the Government's original position. It is hard to believe that that could not have been done by way of an amendable order. Then, if the feared adverse circumstances arose, and some of the farthings in the penny-farthing relationships got wobbly and might not be salvageable, the orders could be amended. I assume that this order could be withdrawn and a new order introduced if it were found unsuitable or inadequate, so I shall not press my point too hard, but it would have been sensible to have removed the uncertainties that the threat of acquisition by a hostile neighbour will still pose after 1993.
The provisions concerning the sharing out of companies do not depart fundamentally from the measures that we debated at considerable length during the passage of the Broadcasting Bill. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I expressed at the time our fears about the concentration of ownership. We said that we wanted diversity and plurality of ownership, and that the present

arrangements allow too great a concentration of power. We would have welcomed a report from John Sadler or the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, for example.
I do not go along with the Opposition's Front Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Erdington, in believing that it would be sensible, following a general election, to set in train yet again the entire bidding process. That would run counter to the interests of television. We must be mindful of the upheaval that the companies face and the concentration of effort that goes into preparing the bids. It is an irresponsible undertaking of the Labour party to suggest that it would relaunch the process if, by some chance, it were to form the next Government.

Mr. Corbett: There has been some misunderstanding. I did not say what the hon. Gentleman suggests. I said—this is what I meant to say or what I thought I said—that at the end of the licence period, on which we are just about starting, we would go through a bidding process again, and not as envisaged under the Act. The only things that would come under the Act would be via the stock exchange. That is all I said.

Mr. Maclennan: I am grateful for that clarification. If I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman's proposal, I readily withdraw. I am bound to say that I thought that he was talking—I think that others reached this understanding—about relaunching the bidding process on the basis of new ground rules as soon as he became the responsible Minister. That would clearly be adverse to the interests of television.
If the arrangements for television cannot be entirely welcomed, the arrangements for radio seem to be considerably worse. It is clear that radio is operating within tight commercial constraints, with limited prospects of profits. The competition that we are witnessing makes the probability of concentration much greater for radio than for television. It is all too likely that the proposal that one company should be allowed to own up to 20 local stations, so that costs and programming will be shared, will be the pattern. I fear that we shall see the disappearance of the diversity of stations that has been held out to us, tantalisingly, as the object. It is not possible within the scope of the debate to deal with possible remedies for that. I merely note what is proposed in modification of the general principle in applying a point system for independent radio.
I fear that the result of the proposals will be the loss of local services. Most stations will be bland and will offer the barest minimum of local news and stories. As soon as a station starts to attract listeners, one of the giants of local radio will seek to take it over.
That is a pattern that we watched with dismay in France. I guess that we cannot prevent it occurring in the United Kingdom, but it is a reason for taking the view that the order is inappropriate to deal with the problem.
It is deplorable and regrettable that community radio is likely to be the first in line for the chop. In the current climate, it is virtually impossible to set up new and specialised services that will attract advertising while audiences are accumulated. Again, if community radio breaks through, it is likely to be quickly swallowed up by one of its larger commercial rivals. We should have built-in protections for community radio, whose function is quite different from that of local radio.
On previous occasions, I have said that the 20 per cent. limit was inappropriately large for television and radio stations, and that a smaller limit would be wiser in a pluralist society. We have missed an opportunity to make competition more effective by holding the reins in a different way. I am disappointed that thinking on that matter has not developed with the advent of the new Home Secretary.
The issue of non-satellite broadcasting divided the House on a previous occasion. Only domestic satellites are mentioned in the order. Now that Mr. Murdoch has reduced his holding in BSkyB, perhaps the personal reasons for exempting him from the rule of law have disappeared. It might be appropriate to go back to the drawing board and consider introducing legislation consistent with that for other sectors, and so remove the special favours for non-domestic satellites that have shown the lack of power of the Independent Television Commission to protect consumers' interests within hours of the enactment of the Broadcasting Bill. I do not expect the Government to move instantly on that matter, but I should like them at least to think about it. It would make sense in the longer term and it would be in the consumer interest.
The order does not reflect the sort of priorities that we believe should have been protected, and for that reason we shall not support the Government tonight.

Mr. John Greenway: I declare an interest as an adviser to Yorkshire Television.
Our debates on the Broadcasting Bill over the past 18 months have been characterised by the shedding of more light on what the future broadcasting scene is likely to be. There was a good example of that a moment ago in the exchange of views between the hon. Members for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) and for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). There will be rejoicing throughout independent television, not least in the Independent Television Commission, that the hon. Member for Erdington has at least clarified his party's position on the allocation of licences—that in the unlikely event of a Labour victory at the next general election there will not be a wholesale reallocation of licences. That is of some relief to us.
I have some sympathy with what the hon. Member for Erdington said about the risks facing Channel 3, and especially regional television. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) put his finger on the root of the problem when he referred to the position of newspapers. Certain national daily newspapers have survived only because of the entrepreneurial investment of certain so-called media tycoons. Whether it is commercial television, commercial radio or newspapers, there is no guarantee of commercial success.
Throughout our deliberations on trying to set in place a proper framework for the future of Channel 3, the real difficulty was that we needed a structure that dealt with the most profitable regions such as Thames Television, TVS and London Weekend Television, but also provided a sensible framework for the future of Grampian Television and Border Television in Scotland. That was at the heart of concern over the future of the ownership of Channel 3

licences and explains why we were unable fully to resolve those matters in Committee, on Report or even on Third Reading of the Broadcasting Bill. Therefore, there was a need for further reflection and consultation on the best framework.
I hope not to appear modest when I suggest that the order, in relation to Channel 3, broadly reflects the compromise proposal that I put to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary shortly before Christmas. I remain disappointed that there was no agreement between the two adjoining licensees to allow mergers to take place even before the licences are reallocated—but that is history.
Now the bids are about to be submitted. By the end of the year the licences will be allocated. In terms of future mergers or takeovers, the draft order provides a sensible compromise between the conflicting and competing commercial interests of different television stations and the crucial ingredient of protecting the regional commitment of whoever has that licence. That involves protecting not the commercial interests of a specific television station, but the regional arrangements and the regional map of Channel 3—there is a fundamental difference between those two.

Mr. Maclennan: indicated assent.

Mr. Greenway: The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland nods in agreement because he knows that those matters largely affect his constituents. I am glad that he agrees with me on that.
I take the point of the hon. Member for Erdington that the framework provided by the Bill leaves us with much meat to put on the bones. However, my reading of the Channel 3 licence applications suggests—I think that this is accepted throughout independent television—that those who will be granted licences in the allocation, whether existing Channel 3 licensees or new players, will have a stronger regional commitment to Channel 3 as a consequence of the Bill and the order than was the case under the old arrangement. That is largely to the credit of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who was responsible for guiding much of the legislation through the House. He responded well to our concerns in the regions about the future of regional television.
We cannot emphasise too much the fact that Channel 3 will represent regional television in the future. I have grave doubts about whether it will be possible, in the greater competitive world of television in the next century, for the British Broadcasting Corporation to maintain the sort of regional television and local radio service that it has at present. I am not suggesting that it will not fight hard to maintain those services, but Channel 3 is the one television channel required, by statute, to provide a regional service. That is why it is important that we place in perspective the issue of who should in future own some of the smaller licences should the cold competitive world of the future mean that their viability is threatened. That is where I part company with the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland. I cannot and never could see the logic of the distanced penny-farthing. I cannot see why Central Television should want to bail out Border Television should Border Television get into financial difficulties.
I can see a considerable advantage, however, in suggesting that Granada Television may wish to bail out Border Television. The hon. Member for Erdington says


that that threatens to undermine the regional service. It does not, because it is clear from the legislation arid what has been said about Channel 3 licence ownership that any company that takes over a neighbouring licence, or any other licence, would be required to honour all the licence obligations, including regional commitments. Those must include the arrangements which the Bill requires and which the Independent Television Commission has strengthened in its draft licences, for the licensees to demonstrate how they will meet the regional programme.
Economies of scale can be beneficial, but there can also be commercial benefits and benefits to viewers. The whole of my constituency in north Yorkshire is one of the overlap areas. Neither Yorkshire Television nor Tyne Tees Television has universal coverage. As we all know from past arguments, that is because of transmission arrangements. However, where a larger licensee acquires the interests of a smaller neighbouring licensee, there can be considerable advantage for viewers in the strengthening of local and regional services. That must not be underestimated.
It will be clear from my comments that I strongly support the order. I shall not mention all the matters with which it deals but will continue to confine my remarks to Channel 3 licensees. In that context, will my hon. Friend the Minister consider the fact that everyone's attention is currently focused on the bid for Channel 3 licences? It is an historic moment for the future of independent television. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Erdington said, we are about to allocate the licences for a period of some 20 years and set the framework for the future of our main terrestrial commercial television channel.
That is why we were right to spend so much time trying to get that framework right. In Committee and on the Floor of the House we argued about the need to maintain quality while not inhibiting commercial opportunity. I believe that we have got the framework right, but it rests on the exceptional circumstance arrangement in the scheme of bidding. None of us wants the highest bid to win at the expense of quality. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the exceptional circumstances provision is there to be used? The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, whose constituency is as far as anyone else's from London, will agree that the further one is from London, the more important is the regional concept of Channel 3 television. The provision deals with the quality of Channel 3 and its commitment to the regions. I believe that the regional commitment can be considered an exceptional circumstance in the scheme of bidding.
On local radio, the ownership arrangements in the order are complex. I hope that my hon. Friend can confirm that he does not accept any argument that those ownership arrangements would hamper commercial investment in local radio because local radio will not be involved in big megabucks, money-spinning activity. Many people will have to put much effort into providing independent radio competition locally against the BBC structure. In rural areas there will not be large audiences and some people many well be investing almost on a wing and a prayer. We should not discourage that investment by ownership rules which are too complex.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I declare an interest, in that I present a programme for BSkyB. It is an excellent, high-quality programme of great intellectual rigour in which I speak for freedom, truth and justice and the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) dissents, when he can get a word in. That ends the commercial break.
The order closes the stable doors after the horses have bolted all over the place. There is an incantation of magical formula of 5 per cent. of this and 20 per cent. of that being introduced, long after the brew has curdled and all the decisions have been taken. The Radio Authority and the ITC are both trying to catch up and cast a cloak of rationality over the undesirable situation that has developed in television and radio. They have been cogitating for months and now we have their recommendations.
During that time—indeed, over the past couple of years—the whole position in radio and television has changed, in my view for the worse, as a result of commercial decisions. In order to accumulate war chests, the ITV companies have drastically reduced staff levels, and therefore their ability to produce high-quality programmes for their regions. As I argued in an intervention in the Minister's speech, the strength of ITV is that it took television production out of London and established centres of excellence in all the regions—in Manchester, in Leeds and in Tyne Tees, for example. The position of those centres has been undermined, and they are now threatened by the contract allocations.
We want to maintain those centres. As far as I can see, there is no requirement in the regulations that the centres of excellence or the network of skills be maintained. The companies can simply become publishers, farming out programmes to independent companies as long as those independent companies produce in the regions. In a sense, that is wishful thinking in areas like Tyne Tees or Yorkshire, where there is not a vigorous network of independent companies to carry on the responsibility if it is not fulfilled by a strong production centre in Newcastle or in Leeds. Therefore, I see a real threat.
I also see a farcical position developing because of the ludicrous system of bidding. If a regional company is not challenged and simply puts in a bid of a penny or a ha'penny, what will happen? If the Government's greedy aspirations cannot be fulfilled because there is not a challenge, what control will the Government or the ITC have? I should like to know, because my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) and I will almost certainly be putting in applications for licences.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: So long as the applications pass the quality threshold in the circumstances that he describes, the hon. Gentlemen will get a good bargain.

Mr. Mitchell: They say that they are a Government of business and commercial rigour, but they have created a daft situation like that. A company that makes an excellent contribution to a region, has a good reputation is not challenged, because of the strength of its productions and what it has done for the region, can get away with making a bid of one penny. The Minister has told us that that is the case. If that is the eventuality, it is daft.

Mr. Lloyd: If a company wanted to bid in that way, it would get a good bargain, but I do not believe that it would win if it bid only one penny.

Mr. Mitchell: In some areas, it is difficult to get bids because expectations are low and the commercial reality is difficult. Money is tight at the moment. In that situation, if a competing bid is not put together, the company would get a bargain. It is folly on the part of the Government to provide them with that opportunity. However, I shall not grumble. If it puts more money back into television production, it benefits viewers in that region, it benefits television and therefore I welcome it.
The second major deterioration that has taken place in the intervening period is in radio. I am saddened by what has happened in commercial, independent, local radio. Companies are gobbling each other up. They are forming bigger and bigger blocks, providing more and more programmes on a network basis, not for a locality or a community, but for an amorphous, much wider entity. Concentrations of shareholdings are taking over companies.
That saddens me because, in 1975, I was involved in the foundation of Pennine Radio in Bradford, which started out as Bradford community radio. We fulfilled to the letter the IBA's then intentions, which were that there should be locally based radio stations, serving the community, with local shareholders, and with local figures taking an active part, providing a vigorous local news service and a talk opportunity for people in the locality. That is all going by the board.
The regulatory authority has watched over the undermining of every one of the principles under which it insisted that people should bid in the first stage in the 1970s, when those stations were set up. The authority has seen the principles undermined, frustrated and overturned and has witnessed the creation of commercial blocks which are nothing more than juke boxes established in a series of localities, over a wider region. That frustrates the purpose of local radio, which is what it is all about, and we have watched it happen.
These regulations are closing the stable door on that process. Indeed, they are closing the stable door in an incomprehensible fashion. I see that section 12 of the regulations entitled "limits", states:
Subject to the following paragraphs, a person shall not at any time hold licences to provide national, local or restricted radio services such that the total number of points applicable to such services, calculated in accordance with article 11, exceeds 15 per cent. of the total number of points so calculated applicable to all such services in respect of which licences have been granted and have not ceased to have effect.
What does that mean? How is that an effective base on which to provide a genuine local radio service of the type that I and the people at Pennine Radio were so proud to establish in 1975, when—we struggled to fulfil the requirements that were then imposed by the IBA—we set up a local radio station serving a genuine community which was run by people from that community and had a shareholding in the community.
The matter has become a joke, and it is not helped by a regulatory authority which we were told would be a light touch authority—in radio as in television—but which is now going in for more heavy-handed regulation than anything that preceded it.
I have had a long brush with that authority over their regulations, which state that politicians shall not present their current affairs programmes. It seems to be all right for politicians to preside over radio authorities, but not for them to appear on a radio programme that it is nominally supervising.
One expects a bureaucracy to justify its silly or irrational decisions. It is a civil servant's job to put "Not unwelcome" on the doormat and to phrase things to defend the status quo. However, in my correspondence about that decision, which seems to me to be an unnecessary interference with the freedom of radio stations, the authority has not even understood the point at issue. The intellectual level of the replies is very worrying. If that is the regulator, it is now in an impossible position because of the differentiations in the national radio stations that we are now setting up. If it is true that the authority has received no applications for the first national non-pop radio station and has had to extend the date for applications in the desperate hope of receiving some, how will that body be regulated if the authority has to beg for applicants to fulfil the intentions that the Government have foisted on it? How will it be regulated if the Government are desperate for bids?

Mr. Corbett: Shall we spend another penny on a radio station?

Mr. Mitchell: I am always happy to co-operate with my hon. Friend the Member for Erdington. Let us extend our talents not only to television but to radio stations.
The Radio Authority's intervention in LBC is another classic example. LBC spent a small fortune splitting its frequencies and providing two radio stations. Then, along comes the Radio Authority, which is committed to diversity, to ask it to put them back together again. That is heavy-handed and elephantine regulation, when we were told that the touch would be light. Frankly, the intellectual level is depressing.
We are dealing with regulations that try to freeze a mess, especially in local radio, where the only effective competition now comes from BBC local radio, which provides diversity and an alternative service. I am thinking especially of BBC Radio Humberside. It provides a magnificent service in the area where allocations by the BBC have been cut because it is kept on such a tight financial string. Local radio is therefore less able to serve its community, so competition is being undermined. The intentions of the system are being frustrated and will not be upheld by the regulations.
The third change is the collapse of British Satellite Broadcasting, which was the biggest disaster after the poll tax. That was a tragedy and a folly, because we had an opportunity to get into the satellite market early with a high technical capability, which would have established us as leaders and provided a system that could have been expanded and sold in Europe. The Government's indecision, dithering and inability to decide who should run it meant that the launch was put back again and again. They considered different companies and danced a series of marital gavottes with different partners, all of which broke up.
Engineers imposed standards that were technically too high and therefore, more expensive, thus reducing again the range of choice of those who could provide the service. The Government delayed and British capital, which is


conventionally nervous in such a situation, was very slow, so the service came too late. It was launched years after it should have been launched, whereas it was vital to get into the market early. It lagged behind and staggered. It went in, even then, with expectations that were too grandiose and with a structure based on the BBC and run by people from the BBC who were used to overspending and to grandiose expectations. It was like the hon. Member for Rochdale (Sir C. Smith) hang-gliding. It was overstaffed, top-heavy and bound to crash because it paid no attention to commercial realities.
BSB failed for two reasons. First, it spent too much money and was too grandiose. It had no idea about commercial realities. Secondly, Rupert Murdoch got in first and scooped the market. Who can blame him? Capitalism is all about taking a risk. Rupert Murdoch got in and did it—successfully. In those circumstances, BSB was bound to fail. It is silly to start complaining—as my hon. Friend the Member for Erdington did—as if Sky had taken over and strangled its opposition. That was not what happened. The shareholders of BSB, alarmed at the scale of their losses, took the baby out of the management's hands and dumped it on Rupert Murdoch's doorstep. That is literally what happened.
How can we then—as my hon. Friend the Member for Erdington did—blame what happened on the man on whose doorstep the baby was dumped? He had taken the risk. About £1·5 billion has been spent so far on the satellite venture. That was enormous expenditure, to provide more choice and diversity for viewers in Britain. So why are we going in for this chorus of blame, praising with faint damns? We
assent with civil leer,
And, without sneering, teach the rest to sneer.
That is our attitude.
I should have preferred a fight—a conflict in which the viewers could have chosen. I should have preferred competition to provide better programmes. That is not what happened, but it is not realistic to blame Murdoch for a situation that was not of his making. The merger was cleared by the Office of Fair Trading, so it is churlish to carp. I do not come to praise Rupert Murdoch but I do not come to bury him either.
The order is a fig leaf to conceal the Government's impotence in the Sky-BSB merger. Our position is intellectually disreputable. However desirable it might be, it is not possible to prevent concentrations of ownership in the media unless the freedom of the press is restricted and the Government close off people's opportunity to enter the market and require people to get out of the market. That is the problem. It is a problem which we must solve if we are to say that the market must be regulated. If we cannot do so, we should not imply that we would deal with the matter.
I have never particularly liked The Sun, but I do not read The Sun. In the heart of every Labour Member of Parliament there is a C. P. Scott struggling to get out. The ethics of The Sun are a matter of taste, but that is not a justification for legislative intervention to expropriate newspapers. The Sun was handed to Rupert Murdoch by whom? We must take that into account. He saved it from closure. The same applies to Today. It is unrealistic to say that we will deal with the monopoly by taking papers away and allowing them to fail. That would be irrational.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erdington said that we would refer newspaper ownership to the Monopolies and

Mergers Commission for investigation. That is the classic formula for any party that cannot decide what to do. It passes the matter on to a Royal Commission, to take minutes and waste years, or to the MMC. However, if we say that, it is irrational also to say that the 20 per cent. ceiling on, for example, Rupert Murdoch's participation would be enforced at the same time, even before the investigation was complete. What is magical about 20 per cent.?
We have here a system that provides more choice and allows the viewer to choose. That is important. More diversity has been provided. Murdoch has taken a risk and I hope that he will succeed. It is churlish to carp and drag sulkily behind saying, "Naughty, naughty." That is not intellectually credible. In focusing on that issue, we have lost sight of the real issue, which is the undermining of the local roots of production in both radio and television. We are fiddling while the position deteriorates.
I am terribly worried that the failure of the Government to provide in the legislation for local production in centres of excellence, which are the basis of ITV's federal system, will mean that the people bidding for contracts do not establish production centres but farm production out. They will farm that out and become publishers. It may be that they will farm it out to independents in the regions, but those people will not encourage the skills, or establish the centres of training and excellence, in the way that ITV has.
I am particularly worried about the maintenance of centres at Border, Grampian and Tyne Tees, where they are important, and about the erosion of local bases in commercial local radio. Local television and radio have been the pride of our system. We are sabotaging the local basis of electronic communications, and this order will do nothing to stop that process.

Mr. Graham Riddick: There is a perfectly respectable case for saying that we should have none of these regulations or controls, but leave it to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to step in if competition is being stifled or undermined. However, I accept that, on balance, it is probably right that we should support this order to ensure that, from the word go, no such reduction in competition takes place. I see no justification whatsoever in the cross-media ownership controls relating to newspapers and satellites. They are wholly unnecessary.
I am a little surprised that the Labour party should be making a fuss about Rupert Murdoch's ownership of a satellite television station. I am surprised to see them engaging in another round of Murdoch-bashing. The last time we discussed this issue—during the debate on the Broadcasting Act 1990—the Labour party clearly lost the argument. The speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), in which I think he was arguing that a Labour Government would force Mr. Murdoch to divest himself of either his satellite interests or his newspaper interests, was, to say the least, extremely unconvincing. I was astonished when the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) appeared to suggest that he had some sympathy with the case being made by Labour Front-Bench Members.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) used the word "disreputable" to describe the approach of


his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). I shall be a little more rude, although it is not always easy to be less polite than the hon. Member for Great Grimsby. Clearly, there is one source of motivation for everything that Labour Members say about Rupert Murdoch and his interests. That motivation is spite—sheer spite. It was Rubert Murdoch who destroyed the stranglehold that the print unions—some of Labour's paymasters—had over the newspaper industry, and Labour wants to get even. It was Rupert Murdoch who got rid of the restrictive practices in newspapers, which were doing so much damage to the industry. A political party whose policy is based on spite does not deserve to be taken seriously.
I am no longer surprised that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), the shadow Home Secretary, for whom the hon. Member for Erdington has been acting as mouthpiece in this debate, should behave on the basis of spite. Last year, he said that he would never again write for the Murdoch newspapers. That was a spiteful decision, but one which, as a regular reader of The Times, and the Sunday Times, and, I confess, as an occasional reader of The Sun, I welcome entirely.
Applying Labour's approach could be justified only if there were a monopoly. The hon. Member for Erdington tried this evening to argue that there was, but the truth is that there is no monopoly. Mr. Murdoch's newspapers operate in a highly competitive environment, a highly competitive marketplace. Each has robust competition, and nobody forces anybody to read any of them.
It is quite clear that Mr. Murdoch's satellite investment is highly risky. Nobody forces people to watch those satellite television stations. The suggestion that Rupert Murdoch has a satellite monopoly is complete nonsense. Mr. Murdoch now owns only 40 per cent. of British Sky Broadcasting and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) pointed out, there is great choice on the Astra satellite system. There are already five English language channels on Astra. More importantly, British Sky Broadcasting is providing competition for the duopoly that has existed in Britain for so long in the BBC and ITV companies.
The real power in broadcasting is not Mr. Murdoch but the BBC. Measured by revenue, the BBC is the largest media enterprise in Europe. It enjoys monopoly access to the licence fee; it has half the terrestrial broadcasting spectrum at its disposal; it has the lion's share of the radio frequencies; it employs 27,000 people and it is the second largest publisher of consumer magazines in Britain; yet Labour does not advocate dismantling the BBC. Apparently, Labour likes the BBC. I am not suggesting at this stage that we should dismantle the BBC.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Opposition want to dismantle the Broadcasting Standards Council? They complain about the amount of sex and violence that appears on television, yet at the same time they want to abolish the very body that sets and controls those standards. It does not line up.

Mr. Riddick: My hon. Friend is right. The Labour party is very partial in its approach to these matters. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, the Labour party wishes to

abolish the Broadcasting Standards Council. It would also reverse the impartiality clauses contained in the Broadcasting Act, which I hope will ensure greater impartiality in broadcasting in the months and years to come.
Tonight we have seen an exercise in Labour hypocricy. The Opposition do not like Mr. Murdoch, and what they have been saying about him tonight is motivated purely by spite. The hon. Member for Erdington, who is no longer in his place, should be thoroughly ashamed of himself for that.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: I regret that I missed the opening Front Bench speeches in the short debate this evening. That was not because, as a television viewer, I detest repeats and it was quite clear that the Labour party would wheel out a repeat of an old show that had failed to improve its audience ratings before, but because the business came on a little earlier than we had expected.
I should remind the House of my personal interest in these matters as a working television journalist employed by British Sky Broadcasting, and of course as the co-presenter of a programme with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). It is most agreeable to have got through three sentences in his presence without having been interrupted. As those who watch our programme will know, that is extremely rare—as rare as my letting him have his say without interrupting him.
I share the concerns which have been expressed this evening about the possible growth of monopoly or dominance within the media, but I see it at a slightly different angle for some Opposition Members. The order does not relate to the printed media—the newspapers—although there is a clear connection because of the provisions relating to ownership. But for the activities of Mr. Murdoch and his company, aided and abetted by Mr. Maxwell—a former Labour Member of Parliament who is rumoured to be a Labour supporter to this day, and who has been almost as forthright in breaking the monopoly power of the trade unions in the print business—I very much doubt that we would see The Independent or several other titles today. It is possible that The Guardian would have gone under—a tragedy that I would have borne nobly and stoically, without too many tears, I must confess. None the less, one should provide a wide range of choice even for those who are obviously fundamentally unable to take advantage of it.
Any suggestion that the activities of Mr. Murdoch in this country have been monopolistic are misplaced. I find it particularly odd that there should be a suggestion that there is any form of satellite television monopoly. There are plenty of channels available at the moment on satellite that could broadcast into this country. It is up to those bold enough to come forward.
If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) could raise a couple more pennies— like him, I am, at times, overwhelmingly tempted to spend a penny on some of our broadcasters, to use his phrase—and some cash, he could have a channel on one of the satellites. Whether or not anyone would want to watch it is another matter.

Mr. Corbett: Rather like Sky.

Mr. Tebbit: Well, I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman would normally find a million or so viewers. I suspect that, if it came to it, his hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby would have a lot more viewers than the hon. Gentleman. We might have a few more viewers for this debate if the two of them transposed their positions. As we all know, however, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby was sacked from his Front Bench position, for taking a job with British Sky Broadcasting. That was done, I presume, so that we should not have any censorship in the media. It does not matter if one writes for The Times. That is not an offence—well, not if one is senior enough; it is only if one is a junior, and when one works for Sky, that one gets fired from the Opposition Front Bench. The gainers from that encounter were ray hon. Friend—I mean the hon. Gentleman; I must remember the proprieties of these things—the Member for Great Grimsby, my co-presenter, and the viewers of Sky.
By far the most dominant force in television today is not Mr. Murdoch, but the BBC. That poses the danger of a monopoly. It still has half the terrestrial channels, apart from its publishing activities. My hon. Friend the Minister should keep a close eye on how well the BBC is doing in the process that was set in train by my hon. Friend and others of contracting out more of its programmes to independent producers.
If my hon. Friend considers what is happening, he will discover that many of those contracts are awarded on a sweetheart basis. Some of the restrictions that are placed on the tenderers for those contracts make it plain that it is the intention of the BBC that nothing shall change whatever, except that the cost of the productions shall increase because former BBC employees will be doing that production with an added fee. That was not the intention of placing a requirement on the BBC to contract out some of its work to independent producers. [Interruption]
The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) is muttering from a sedentary position. Perhaps he can tell me how the BBC has done in reducing its prices to the consumer, just as British Telecom has reduced its prices to the consumer. If the hon. Gentleman knows the answer, he might have something to say. Would he like to tell us what has been happening to the licence fee, as opposed to telephone charges?

Mr. Tony Worthington: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me how it is just that people all over Britain are having to pay 17·5 per cent. VAT on their telephone charges when that 17·5 per cent. VAT was not in existence from January to March this year?

Mr. Tebbit: That is a little bit off the broad scope of the debate. I will only say briefly that, so far as it is possible to do, those consumers are not being charged that additional VAT unless it is proper and appropriate that they should be.

Mr. Worthington: It sounds like a racket to me.

Mr. Tebbit: 1 would be happy if my hon. Friend the Minister were able to tell us tonight that in future the BBC's licence fee would be linked to the retail prices index in the same way as British Telecom's prices—RPI minus 6·5 per cent. It would no doubt please everybody in the House to see prices coming down in that way— or would it? Perhaps not.
But as I have said, the principal threat to competition in television is, first, the continuing dominance of the BBC and secondly, and more seriously perhaps in many ways, the threat to the independent sector which is coming from the present dearth of advertising revenues. That is the problem which may well force under some of the smaller independent companies, particularly those in radio.
There has been a lot of talk this evening about the dangers of successful companies in television and radio being taken over in predatory bids. But in my experience, it is not successful companies that are taken over, but unsuccessful companies. If there is a danger at all at the moment, it lies first in the lack of advertising revenue, which springs from the considerable expansion in the number of stations spreading the revenue too thinly, and, secondly, in the recession reducing the amount of revenue available. That is where the danger lies, not from the activities of the strong, powerful and well-financed companies.
I hope that my hon. Friend, when he looks at those matters, will be entirely firm and stick to what he has said about the manner in which the restrictions will be applied to cross-media ownership. There is no requirement to strengthen the regulations beyond those which he has proposed. If anything, in the longer term, we should be looking at reducing those restrictions.
I do not find it acceptable to see that there is a monopoly because somebody is a significant operator in the printed press and the electronic media. Those are not the same areas, and I do not think that we should worry too much about it.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: We began the debate earlier than we expected, so we have taken considerably more time to debate considerably more points than we might have expected to do. As a result, I have covered six or seven sides in closely written hieroglyphics which, if I tackled each one fully, would require a long speech. The House will be glad to hear that I can never read my own handwriting at this time in the evening, so I shall be brief and will refer only to the points that were directed at me which I can remember. My handwriting was rather better at the beginning of the debate when a number of points were put to me by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett).
The hon. Gentleman asked what happens if there is no bid in one region. I am not as pessimistic as he is, but if that should happen the ITC would have to advertise again. As it would have allowed the region to continue only on the basis that it was a viable one, it would be a clear signal that here was an opportunity for the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) to buy, if not for a penny, for a lower sum than he might have thought it would have cost him if he had made his bid in the first place.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: This is monstrous. The Minister is now changing what he said originally. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) and I have begun to formulate our bid. Is the Minister saying that if the terms of the Act were fulfilled by a sole contender company putting in a bid of one penny that bid would be rejected?

Mr. Lloyd: If the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) had listened to his hon. Friend the Member for


Erdington, let alone to me, he would have realised that his hon. Friend was talking about a region where there was no bid at all. What would happen then? I see that the hon. Member for Erdington is nodding in agreement. What I am saying now is on all fours with what I said before. If no second bid is made, if the hon. Member for Great Grimsby realises that he cannot manage something as complex as putting in a bid that would satisfy the quality threshold, the ITC would have to look to neighbouring licensees to run a temporary service until a satisfactory licensee could be found for the region.
The hon. Member for Erdington was worried about production facilities in the regions not being used. There is bound to be less use of production facilities of contractors and licensees because of the 25 per cent. rule, which means that 25 per cent. of output must be provided by independents. Of course, the 80 per cent. for specific contracted regional broadcasting will have to be made in the appropriate region, but the price that one pays for having independents is that they be independent enough to choose where they can best make their programmes.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby deviated into sense when he talked about the real pressures on an organisation such as Sky, and the lack of realism shown by his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench. However, he shared their inpracticality when he said that there should be a rule about where independents should produce programmes. The whole point about independents is that they are independent people who will produce programmes that they believe are wanted, and they need to produce them as competitively as possible. It must be up to them to decide where they should do so. I am less pessimistic than the hon. Gentleman about the possibility of their not doing so in the regions.
Contrariwise, the hon. Member for Erdington was worried that the broadcasters would force independents to use facilities in the way that the broadcasters wanted them to. However, the order that we have just published on the definition of an independent—no doubt we shall debate it soon—makes it clear that such pressure must not be applied. If it were, that would be a matter for the regulatory authorities. Independents must be seen to be independent as well as actually being independent.

Mr. Tebbit: If an independent must be seen to be independent, is it reasonable of the BBC to specify to independents which might contract with it who should present a programme, and to reserve the right to approve of the choice of editor, or even to appoint the editor? Is it right that the BBC should reserve the right to approve the panellists on a programme, or that it should insist that the existing music and graphics of a programme be used, and so on? That does not leave a lot of independence, does it?

Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend is extending an argument in particular directions that he was advancing generally in his speech. He has raised exactly the sort of matter that we shall consider when we debate the order that defines independents. As the evening grows late, even though we started to debate the order fairly early, I shall leave the matter until we debate the independents order, if my right hon. Friend will forgive me.
The hon. Member for Erdington wondered what would happen if broadcasters made arrangements together to sell

advertising. It was part of his generalised worry about concentration of power. That would become a matter of interest to the Office of Fair Trading. The OFT has a role to ensure that real competition exists, and that extends to advertising. When the hon. Gentleman says that he is worried about concentration of ownership of the press and of television licensees, I remind him that the rules provide categorically and clearly, as does the Act, I believe—having sat through the consideration of the Bill that became the Broadcasting Act 1990, he will probably know this better than most—that no British press proprietor may own more than 20 per cent. of the shareholding of any television company. If there is any suggestion that the 20 per cent. may be a controlling interest because of the make-up of the company, the percentage holding will have to be reduced. There is no question of a concentration of power in that respect.
The hon. Member for Erdington wondered whether we would have to accept somebody's word. It is not a matter of accepting anyone's word, and that is why we are debating the order. The order stems from the Act and the rules are before us. The hon. Gentleman said that he felt that BSkyB had a monopoly of satellite broadcasting. It does not have a total monopoly because other satellite channels are available. When there is only one player in the field, that player is the monopoly. A succession of opportunities are available on Astra 1 and 2 and, it is mooted, Astra 3, for other players to move on to the field. That means that there is no monopoly in any accepted sense of that word. It is easy for competition to materialise if there is a willingness to invest resources. If that is done, the competition will find an audience.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: What would happen if there were a shareholder with a 20 per cent. holding, it was decided that there should be a rights issue and the other parties could not afford to take advantage of that issue? The holdings of the other parties would be diluted and the 20 per cent. holding would be worth more. What would the Government do in such circumstances?

Mr. Lloyd: They would not do anything. The Independent Television Commission would ensure that the 20 per cent. which had risen to whatever level was reduced at least to the previous level of 20 per cent.

Mr. Dickens: Would it buy?

Mr. Lloyd: How it reduced the holding—by giving it away, selling it or whatever—would be a matter for the commission to decide. The major requirement is that the holding should be reduced, and that it would be.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Erdington accepted—my handwriting is still quite good quality—that it was sensible for the ITC to enable BSB viewers to continue to receive broadcasts. The arrangements are temporary and the commission has some imaginative proposals for securing more programming on the Marco Polo satellite. The success of what it intends to do will depend upon individuals willingly coming forward. I hope that they will. There is no monopoly in any reasonable sense of the word because we cannot separate satellites from the rest of broadcasting that is available. Satellite broadcasting represents an extremely small proportion of broadcasting as a whole.
The hon. Member for Erdington thought that the Government should refer the BSB-Sky merger to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. If the hon. Gentleman reflects upon the matter, he will recall that it was considered by the OFT, which found no basis whatever for a reference to the M MC. That is hardly surprising, as the combined satellite broadcasts account for far less than 10 per cent. of all broadcasting.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) expressed similar concerns about the decreasing use of production facilities in the provinces. I hope that he accepts that the points that I made earlier apply very much to what he said. He is being too pessimistic. We must accept that the independents, as well as the licensees, should make those programmes where they think that they can best make them.
My hon. Friend said that there was an insufficient number of radio frequencies. The Radio Authority intends to advertise 30 new franchises a year. That would be quite demanding of the skills and experience available in the industry. I doubt whether it would be practical or sensible to go very much further, but that is a matter for the authority. It is important, and will be in the coming years, that more frequencies are released. I have that very much in mind in my discussions with the BBC and my colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry, who have responsibility for the distribution of wavelengths.
My hon. Friend was right to say that Sky has extended, at great cost, the choice available to viewers and that further advances such as digital, which is on the horizon, will not be made if those willing to take that sort of risk did not have the freedom to do so. Many of the Labour party's suggestions for further restrictions would make such advances impossible. I noted what my hon. Friend said about the televising of proceedings in the House. That is a matter not for me but for the House.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and I have had a sufficient number of exchanges about BSB dishes for me now to pass over that point. He asked about the levy, but it would not be proper for me to comment on that at any length. I hope that Mr. Speaker will prove a light-handed regulator and will allow me to say that there is great concern in the television industry about the weight of the levy bearing down upon it at a time when advertising revenue has been reduced. I keep that matter in mind in discussions with Government colleagues. We have not yet reached a conclusion, but I hope that we will do so soon. The levy does not directly affect the new licences and the bidding for them. By the time that the new licences are on the air in 1993, the levy will be a thing of the past.
I was pleased that the hon. Gentleman was pleased with the changes in the continuity rules, even if he would have preferred us to go further. I do not accept his fear that radio will be concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. Advertising on radio has been maintained at a rather better level than on television. He referred to the rule in the Act that no one should own more than 20 stations. I draw his attention to the rule that does not alow anyone to own stations that would give them more than 15 per cent. of the totality of points, which are calculated according to the reach of the stations that are operational, and which, as new stations come along, will tend to increase.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) spoke, as usual, knowledgeably and wisely. I am glad to have his support for our arrangements under

the order. I confirm that the provision in the Act for exceptional circumstances is there to be used. The Independent Television Commission knows that, and will use it as it judges appropriate. It is not for Ministers to say when it should do so. However, I confirm that it is well aware that it has that power and a duty to use it whenever it considers it necessary.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby was excited and entertaining, and I enjoyed listening to him. Some of his remarks related to the order. All hon. Members, especially Opposition Members who expect to remain in opposition, have the failing of wanting everything both ways—or even three or four ways. The independents have been given the opportunity to make programmes and have been given a space in the BBC and ITV to make up to at least 25 per cent. of those companies' programmes. Inevitably, they will choose where and how to make the programmes. If the hon. Member for Great Grimsby feels that the Labour party should be more sensitive to the realities of the world of Sky Television, I suggest that he should be more sensitive to independent production.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: That was not the point that I was making. I asked what happens to the existing centres of production run by existing companies.

Mr. Lloyd: Some will be sold and others will be used. Any superfluous assets will be dealt with by the owners in the best possible way. It is not for the Government to lay down prescriptions. Even if I had an idea about how they could best be used, I am sure that the companies would feel that they knew better, and I would not argue with them about that.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby said that the rules were extremely complicated. They are quite complicated and he should read them carefully. He would need to read them several times but, if he did so, he would find that they were quite clear. They would assure him that there was not the concentration of power in radio or television that Opposition Members fear. I have no such fears, not because I am in favour of concentration—I am emphatically against it—but because the rules will guard effectively against it. I therefore commend them to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 163, Noes 102.

Division No.127]
[10.27 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Brazier, Julian


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bright, Graham


Amess, David
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Amos, Alan
Browne, John (Winchester)


Arbuthnot, James
Buck, Sir Antony


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Budgen, Nicholas


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Burns, Simon


Ashby, David
Burt, Alistair


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Butterfill, John


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Bellingham, Henry
Carrington, Matthew


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Carttiss, Michael


Benyon, W.
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Bevan, David Gilroy
Chapman, Sydney


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Chope, Christopher


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Colvin, Michael


Bottomley, Peter
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Cope, Rt Hon John


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Cormack, Patrick


Bowis, John
Couchman, James


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Cran, James






Curry, David
Maude, Hon Francis


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Day, Stephen
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Dickens, Geoffrey
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Dorrell, Stephen
Miller, Sir Hal


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mills, Iain


Durant, Sir Anthony
Miscampbell, Norman


Dykes, Hugh
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Emery, Sir Peter
Mitchell, Sir David


Evennett, David
Monro, Sir Hector


Fallon, Michael
Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Favell, Tony
Moss, Malcolm


Fishburn, John Dudley
Neale, Sir Gerrard


Franks, Cecil
Nelson, Anthony


Freeman, Roger
Neubert, Sir Michael


French, Douglas
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Gale, Roger
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Paice, James


Goodlad, Alastair
Patnick, Irvine


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hague, William
Redwood, John


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Riddick, Graham


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Hampson, Dr Keith
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Harris, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Haselhurst, Alan
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Hawkins, Christopher
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Stevens, Lewis


Hayward, Robert
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Hunter, Andrew
Thorne, Neil


Irvine, Michael
Thornton, Malcolm


Jack, Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Twinn, Dr Ian


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Viggers, Peter


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Key, Robert
Waller, Gary


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Ward, John


Kirkhope, Timothy
Watts, John


Knapman, Roger
Wells, Bowen


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Wheeler, Sir John


Knowles, Michael
Whitney, Ray


Knox, David
Widdecombe, Ann


Latham, Michael
Wiggin, Jerry


Lawrence, Ivan
Wilshire, David


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Wood, Timothy


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Yeo, Tim


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Maclean, David



McLoughlin, Patrick
Tellers for the Ayes:


Madel, David
Mr. Nicholas Baker and Mr. Tim Boswell


Mans, Keith



Martin, David (Portsmouth S)






NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
McAllion, John


Alton, David
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
McKelvey, William


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
McLeish, Henry


Battle, John
Maclennan, Robert


Beggs, Roy
McMaster, Gordon


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
McWilliam, John


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Madden, Max


Bermingham, Gerald
Marek, Dr John


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Meale, Alan


Caborn, Richard
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Callaghan, Jim
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Morgan, Rhodri


Corbett, Robin
Mullin, Chris


Cousins, Jim
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Crowther, Stan
O'Brien, William


Cryer, Bob
O'Hara, Edward


Cummings, John
Patchett, Terry


Dalyell, Tam
Pike, Peter L.


Darling, Alistair
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Primarolo, Dawn


Dixon, Don
Quin, Ms Joyce


Dobson, Frank
Radice, Giles


Doran, Frank
Randall, Stuart


Duffy, A. E. P.
Reid, Dr John


Eastham, Ken
Robinson, Geoffrey


Fearn, Ronald
Rogers, Allan


Flynn, Paul
Rooker, Jeff


Foster, Derek
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Foulkes, George
Rowlands, Ted


Galloway, George
Ruddock, Joan


George, Bruce
Skinner, Dennis


Golding, Mrs Llin
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Gordon, Mildred
Snape, Peter


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Soley, Clive


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Grocott, Bruce
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Hain, Peter
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Haynes, Frank
Vaz, Keith


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Wallace, James


Home Robertson, John
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Hood, Jimmy
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Howells, Geraint
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Wilson, Brian


Ingram, Adam
Winnick, David


Lamond, James
Worthington, Tony


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)



Livsey, Richard
Tellers for the Noes:


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Mr. Thomas McAvoy and Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie


Loyden, Eddie

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Broadcasting (Restrictions on the Holding of Licences) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 28th March, be approved.

PETITION

Cosmetics (Animal Testing)

Mr. Don Dixon: With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to present a petition given to me by four pupils from Whitburn comprehensive school in my constituency, Louise Freeman, Marit Hudson, Angela Patterson and Rachel Green.
They told me when they came to my office on Saturday that they were so appalled at the thousands of animals that suffer and die each year to test cosmetics, and toiletries such as lipstick that they went out each night after school and each weekend and collected more than 1,000 signatures from people in my constituency.
Their petition tells of cruel tests involving rabbits having shampoo injected into their eyes, or guinea pigs having their skin shaved off and products applied to their raw flesh. The petition also asks for legislation to protect these animals and to make illegal the use of animals for the testing of cosmetics and other household products.
I congratulate these girls on their endeavours, and I fully support the petition.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — NHS Trust (Bradford)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Mr. Max Madden: I am extremely pleased to introduce this short debate, for which I have applied for the past six weeks.
The recently published Bradford health plan outlines a number of overall health priorities: mothers and the newborn; infants; toddlers and children; adolescents; people requiring acute services; people with chronic diseases; people requiring rehabilitation and stroke services; and, elderly people.
About 80 women in every 1,000 of child-bearing age have a baby each year, which provides Bradford with one of the highest birth rates anywhere in the country. Projections show that there will be some 5,300 to 5,600 births each year, yet there has been a relative decline in expenditure in maternity care services, which has fallen from 10·5 to 10·1 per cent. of total expenditure, during the past five years.
Bradford has the highest proportion of children under 16 years old anywhere in the country—23 per cent. of our total population—and by the year 2001, the five-to-14 age group will have increased by 10 per cent.
The health plan says:
The health of children in Bradford is poor and presents a greater challenge than for most other health districts. Children between the ages of 0–14 years have a 42% increased risk of dying in Bradford than elsewhere in the country …
Deaths in children under one year old are particularly high …
The different levels and patterns of death amongst different ethnic groups is relevant to Bradford's multi-racial population. Death rates for babies of mothers of Pakistani origin for example, are 16·9 per 1,000 total births, compared with a rate of 9·4 for babies born to mothers of British origin …
Serious congenital malformations are more common in Bradford than elsewhere in the UK.
Yet expenditure has again fallen from 5·5 per cent. to 4 per cent. in the past five years.
There are about 45,000 disabled adults in Bradford. Of those, 18,500 have severe disability and 9,000 very severe disabilities. Of all day hospital attendances, stroke is the most common condition. Deaths from stroke are about 20 per cent. higher in Bradford than should be expected. Heart disease is a major killer.
The plan goes on to say:
Generally the population of Bradford is younger than the population of England and Wales. It is predicted that in Bradford the number of people aged 65 and over will reduce from 46,000 in 1985 to 44,600 by the end of the century. However, within this figure the number of people aged 85 and over will increase by 27% from 4,000 in 1985 to 5,100 by 2001.
The Bradford hospitals trust became fully operational on 1 April, although it has clearly been in the driving seat for several months, having been formally established in mid-December. Its official aim is to provide
high quality health care, promptly and equitably for the people of Bradford.
Sadly, public confidence in the Bradford trust achieving its aim has been seriously undermined. In January, constituents who wanted operations at Woodlands hospital were told that operations had been cancelled on the Government's instructions because of the Gulf war. It


has since become clear that patients awaiting operations at the Bradford royal infirmary and at St. Luke's hospital were also refused admission on identical grounds.
The trust cancelled all operations for which patients required a long stay for five days at the start of the Gulf war. In doing so, it acted without authority or instructions from the Government. I understand that Bradford health authority ordered the trust to reopen the list, yet it took a further six to nine days before operating lists were working normally again. Even by the middle of February, operations requiring long stays in surgical beds—especially for hip replacement operations—were still being refused.
One constituent, outraged at being refused his double hip replacement operation in Bradford, thought that he had obtained his operation by going to Scotland. However, his consultant in Scotland wrote saying that he could not be admitted, as neither Bradford nor Tayside health authority was willing to pay for it. So much for patient choice and for the Government's claims that, under the new reforms, money will follow patients. Now, four months later, my constituent is in Bradford and I wish him a full and speedy recovery following the operation that he should and could have received in January. If he had not had the confidence to protest, I wonder whether he would now be having the operation that he badly needs.
Over Easter, ward 16 of Bradford royal infirmary, which treats young people for ear, nose and throat illness, was closed for a fortnight. It is believed that the primary reason was that the four consultants responsible for the specialty chose to take their holidays simultaneously. Nurses were redeployed as a result of the closure, but those who could not be found alternative duties were forced to take unpaid leave. It is also clear that paediatric staff at St. Luke's hospital are now working under extraordinary pressure.
In February, an internal memo was leaked. It is strongly believed to have been written by Dr. Mark Baker, chief executive of the trust and former district general manager for Bradford health authority. The memo, which is dated 25 January, stated that overspending on the budget was running at 2·5 per cent. to 3 per cent. and that there should be an immediate reduction of 6 per cent. in current expenditure and a reduction of 3·5 per cent. against budget. Strategy should be based on reduced staffing, reduced plant and overheads and marginal cost limitation.
The memo stated that emergency action should include
total immediate recruitment freeze until further notice …except for junior medical staff …an absolute ban on use of nurse agencies
and
a ban on all purchases unless essential for emergency medical purposes.
It went on to say that there should be planned restriction on the volume and range of activity, for example pathology, X-ray and surgery, help for sick staff to retire and honesty about redundancy. It states that that could result in a rise in the waiting list.
The memo also said that there should be
an absolute freeze on development until further notice"
and
no upgradings except for new jobs or as part of total reprofiling.
It also stated that no promises should be made, and that

staff whose employment is to be terminated should be identified early and released at the beginning of the financial year. Situation is partly the result of HQ profligacy, partly due to creepage but also significantly due to loss of management control. Some directorates have taken positive action to reduce cost but we are now in a different scale of crisis altogether. For all directorates, getting a grip on spending now is the only relevant measure of performance.
In addition to taking the action I have outlined, I want formal feedback by next Wednesday on what can be achieved and what the service implications are.
I gave a copy of that memo to the Minister when I met him, together with colleagues, in March of this year.
Dr. Baker, at the time of writing that memo, had been district general manager less than 12 months previously. He was also the senior manager and the architect of the budgets that he is now busily cutting. Paragraph 6 of that memo says:
If action leads to ward closures, manage them right—we will help. Use the crisis to achieve goals.
On 30 January, staff on ward 6 at Bierley Hall hospital were told that their ward would close. I shall not pursue that matter, as I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), in whose constituency Bierley Hall is located, will deal with it later.
It is clear that expenditure cuts will have several knock-on effects. Not least will be the blocking of acute beds, thereby defeating throughput, without which the trust cannot succeed. Dr. Baker admits that longer waiting lists will result. The Bradford health plan says that waiting lists are high on the political agenda.
Then, in a delphic paragraph, the memo says that waiting lists are
as much about the way doctors work as they are about unmet need. It is clear that both the purchaser and the provider will need to discuss the management of waiting lists and targets set for different conditions, dependent on the availability of resources. The purchaser may well have to decide to limit activity. This will in practice either change the way services are provided or clarify the need for additional NHS funds.
In late February, there were rumours that the special care baby unit at St. Luke's hospital in my constituency was to close. My opposition to the closure was dubbed "scaremongering" by leading local Conservatives. I wrote to Dr. Baker on 15 March. He replied:
The proposal to close the SCBU at St. Luke's hospital is still under consideration. The proposition was made by the consultants who run the unit, not by management. Should it be pursued, an operational policy would be developed which ensured that both outcomes would benefit not deteriorate.
A small number of items of equipment, which were funded by public donation, would naturally be retained and used at the Bradford Royal Infirmary.
By 10 April, the Bradford Telegraph and Argus was reporting:
A special care baby unit at Bradford's oldest hospital will definitely close it was revealed today.
Health chiefs at the city's new Hospital Trust said a ten-cot ward at St. Luke's Hospital—which looks after premature and sick babies—will shut within four months.
I pay tribute to a campaigning group called Baby Unit Regional Parents Society, which has done an excellent job in campaigning to keep this unit open. It fears that sick babies could be at risk if they have to be transferred across the city from St. Luke's to the special care baby unit at BRI. The intention, as the Minister will undoubtedly tell us later, is to centralise maternity services at BRI. I appeal to him not to allow the closure of the special care baby unit at St. Luke's until that centralisation has taken place. I understand that it could be two or even three years ahead.
It would be wrong to put the life of any child at risk by transferring it when it was extremely sick across several miles of what is often a congested inner-city centre. It would be much better to keep the unit until centralization can take place, with proper and adequate accommodation at Bradford royal infirmary.
Also in February came news of a £5 five-year trust hospital catering contract awarded to a company called Taylorplan Services of Chiswick in London. Catering staff at BRI and St. Luke's will be made redundant as a consequence of this contract. I sponsored three early-day motions—Nos. 544, 545 and 546—on the subject.
The first of these reveals that, according to Taylorplan's latest accounts, the firm is technically insolvent. It has very large pre-tax losses, and its assets exceed its liabilities by a considerable amount. The other two motions refer to the company's extremely poor past performance, especially in cleaning contracts, not least at Airedale hospital, a neighbour of Bradford, where, in the first four months of the cleaning contract, there were 450 complaints; and to the company's low rates of pay and poor conditions of employment.
Again I wrote to Dr. Baker on that matter. In a letter of 19 March, he replied as follows:
The catering service was tendered for in the usual way and Taylorplan Services Limited are on the approved list of contractors. They currently hold a large number of public sector contracts, including one in our Trust, and we have no concern over their work quality nor their corporate security.
As you know, the pay rates for NHS ancillary staff are generally low and I understand that Taylorplan's basic wage rates are competitive.
The new contract will save the NHS some money and most staff can expect to be reemployed by Taylorplan as well as receiving redundancy payments.
Last month came news that mothers and toddlers using the child development centre at St. Luke's were to lose their own transport because the Spastics Society funding had ended and there was no money to secure independent transport. I am very grateful for the efforts of the current district general manager, who has been desperately trying to find the necessary funds to allow independent transport to continue.
A friend of the centre described the importance of transport in the following way:
We need transport which has proved fundamental for getting children into the centre. They are heavy and it is difficult for mums to use local transport. Many of our mothers, especially the Asian community, have other children under school age. Bus stops are not always near home and adverse weather conditions can affect the health of the handicapped child. It is difficult to collapse a buggy when a handicapped toddler cannot stand or even sit on a pavement. We have come to the end of our money raised for transport and are now without any means of bringing children in.
Incidentally, those people also need money for equipment and toys. Under the trust, no money was available, and they faced the prospect of losing their transport.
It is now very clear that, given the financial crisis in Bradford, the establishment of the trust this year was a tragic blunder. 'The Government were advised by Bradford community health centre and others to defer the trust for at least a year to enable the financial situation to be clarified and experience of trusts in other parts of the country to be obtained. However, as the Government, for reasons of political dogma, were determined to see a trust established in Bradford this April, they owe it to my constituents and the constituents of other Bradford

Members of Parliament to inject extra funds now to restore the services that have been cut already and to avoid other cuts that are threatened.
Bradford needs about £5 million if those cuts are to be avoided. It was not given Government money that was available to cover deficits at 31 March last year. It has a deficit of about £1 million as at 31 March this year. In the past six years there has been no pattern of underlying deficit in Bradford, so why has Bradford been denied the Government funding which could and should have been provided? I hope that the Minister will say that that money will be forthcoming.
My constituents should not be penalised by enduring diminished standards of health care. It does not matter how the present situation came about— whether it was by resources being switched wrongly from community health to acute services, by management losing control or by profligate spending. That is irrelevant to Bradford. It is essential that money is made available now to ensure that those cuts are not made and that the standards of health care in Bradford are maintained.
A senior nurse wrote to me in early February:
The Health Service in Bradford is being dismantled and no one has the power to call a halt.
I receive many reports showing that staff within the trust and throughout the national health service in Bradford are extremely demoralised. They do not believe that anyone cares or that any action is being taken to remedy the faults that they see around them. They are fearful for the future and they are afraid that they will be sacked if they stick their heads above the parapet. Even now, with the trust formally established on 1 April, there is no trade union recognition, or even a handbook on the terms and conditions of employment.
The Government have the power to do something about the situation. If the present Government refuse properly to fund the new trust in Bradford, the people of Bradford have the power to vote in the next general election to return a new Labour Government who will end the Bradford trust and others, stopping the spread of a two-tier health service in Bradford and throughout the country, and the drift towards the privatisation of the national health service. By restoring proper funding, we shall create a new national health service dedicated to offering care free at the point of delivery. That is what the people of Bradford want and deserve. I very much hope that the Minister will give us some assurance that the money we pressed him for in March and which we shall continue to press him for will be made available.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and congratulate him on obtaining tonight's Adjournment debate. I should say as briefly as possible that the people of Bradford regard the Bradford national health service trust as the enemy within the national health service.
My constituents are concerned that Bierley Hall hospital, which is being taken over by the trust, has faced two ward closures. One of those wards was refurbished at a cost of £100,000 to the national health service. Surely that is a waste of resources, as is the sacking of newly qualified nurses, trained by the national health service. Surely it is wrong that those skilled and caring staff are facing the dole queue.
The Minister will have received a letter from me about Westwood hospital, which is not part of the trust but is proposed as a section for another trust. I ask the Minister carefully to consider the letter that I sent him and to ensure that Westwood hospital is not sold off for building development but that instead a village complex is built there for mentally handicapped people. The patients at that hospital, their relatives and the staff want such a concept to be applied to Westwood.
I hope that, before a trust is established, the Minister will take positive action towards a village development at Westwood. Those representing the Labour party and the Conservative party in Bradford and elsewhere will very much welcome such a development.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): In response to the debate, I had hoped to enlarge upon the answers that I gave to the hon. Members for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) in a recent Question Time. In the time left, however, I may have to précis those answers rather than enlarge upon them.
When the hon. Member for Bradford, South came to see me, I undertook to consider what he had to say about Westwood. The proposal for a village development on the site of a mental handicap hospital is not unique to Westwood, but we are prepared to consider it for that hospital.
The hon. Member for Bradford, West presented us with a strange amalgam of a speech. When he started, I thought that, at last, the Government were winning. The hon. Gentleman couched the argument that he wanted the House to consider in terms of the public health outputs achieved by the NHS in Bradford. I should be more than happy to enter into a debate on that, as I believe that that is the way in which health debates should be run.
The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the fact that there is an unusually high birth rate in Bradford and to the fact that health managers should address the problem of perinatal mortality and that associated with the incidence of congenital malformations. That is precisely why we have changed the way in which the health service is managed. That will ensure that Bradford health authority, the purchaser authority, is charged with the use of public money to achieve the public health objectives of the city. It is to that authority that the principal responsibility for commissioning and designing health care provision in the city falls.
Although the management of hospitals is an important part of the responsibility of the health service managers, it is essentially a secondary function. Their primary responsibility is to use the resources available to the NHS to meet the kind of public health objectives that the hon. Member for Bradford, West defined. However, having started so well, it was sad that the hon. Gentleman then veered off into oldspeak and engaged in a prolonged discussion of the range of inputs into the health service. He then went on to give a party political broadcast about how all the problems would be solved with the election of a different Government. History does not bear out the claim that a change of Government from one party to another, either way, provides such a solution.
The hon. Gentleman made an unfair attack on the management of the new trust for decisions that they were alleged to have taken in response to the outbreak of the Gulf war. It should not have escaped the hon. Gentleman's notice that that trust started to operate on 1 April. That fact will not allow the hon. Gentleman to sustain an argument about decisions taken in January and February. The trust was established on 1 April 1991. The decisions taken were reached on the basis of the old health service structures, not on the basis of the trust and the distinct purchaser authority.
I shall use the specific changes that are being made in Bradford to rebut absolutely the charge that there is a lack of interest in health care or that there is any reason for a decline in morale in the health service, if such a feeling exists.
It is important to consider the changes in the revenue budget of the Bradford trust. I will repeat the explanation that I gave to the hon. Gentleman for Bradford, West when he came to see me, as it is important. By setting up the acute sector as an independent management unit of the trust, in Bradford, we have obliged managers in the trust to address the overspend that has gone for some time in that sector. The managers are committed to reducing that overspend by tackling overspending in the support service and administration costs. The trust intends to maintain the existing range of services and activity levels by focusing on improved efficiency and cost-effectiveness within the acute sector. It has no intention of cutting services.
The greatest criticism of the traditional system of managing health care in Bradford is the fact that, for several years now, the acute sector has been allowed to raid the budget that was originally allocated to the community services, as the barons of the acute sector have been living over budget and the community services in the city have not had the level of spend that the health authority originally planned for them.
If the new arrangements for health care in Bradford do no more than ensure that the acute sector effectively lives within the prioritised budget of the health authority and the resources that the authority plans to use for community services are in fact used for community services, that outcome alone in my book would justify the changes that we have introduced.
However, that is not the only justification. Once again, the hon. Gentleman neglected to draw to the attention of the House the fact that the Bradford trust has allocated to it the largest capital budget of any trust in this financial year. I listed the figures in the answer that I gave him on 16 April, in column 147 of Hansard. There is an investment budget in prospect for Bradford's hospitals in this decade of £110 million. That is not the outcome that one would have expected if the health service managers were not committed to the future of Bradford's health service.
The new arrangements and the people in charge of them in Bradford intend in their plans to provide a new model of health care in Bradford which will be better attuned to the health needs which the hon. Gentleman rightly itemised at the beginning of his speech. I look forward to seeing the results of that flow through to the people of Bradford.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Eleven o'clock.